Anthropological Research in Light of Research-Ethics Review: Canadian Master's Theses, 1995–2004
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DESPITE CLAIMS THAT RESEARCH-ETHICS review is changing or discouraging social research, there are no studies that have tested this assumption. Examining Canadian Master's theses in anthropology between 1995 and 2004, this paper explores the extent to which the theses represent a change in number, topic, or methodology in relation to formal ethicsreview guidelines that came into force in Canada in 2001. ProQuest Digital Dissertations reveals that the number of theses has increased, and that there has not been a noticeable shift from research involving humans to research based on archival data, or theoretical or review theses. However, there has been a very significant increase in research that is called ethnography, but that relies exclusively on interviews. Possible reasons for the halving of percent of ethnographic or participantobservation research are explored.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.719 | 0.394 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.095 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".