MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046427307 · doi:10.1080/07481180701537220

Ethical Issues in the Study of Bereavement: the Opinions of Bereaved Adults

2007· article· en· W2046427307 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDeath Studies · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyEthical issuesInformed consentGriefResearch ethicsClinical psychologyMedicinePsychotherapistPsychiatryEngineering ethicsAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Few studies examine ethical issues in bereavement research and none survey the opinions of bereaved individuals who have not previously participated in bereavement research. This study examined the theoretical opinions of bereaved adults about ethical issues such as attitudes toward bereavement research, timing and methods of recruitment, and competency to consent. Participants felt positively about bereavement research, although opinions about timing and method of recruitment were varied. The results also suggest that bereaved individuals should be considered competent to consent to bereavement research participation. Conclusions may guide bereavement researchers and research ethics boards in the design and review of bereavement studies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.276
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.355 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it