MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Participatory action research: considerations for ethical review

2004· article· en· W2061514304 on OpenAlexaff
Nazilla Khanlou, Elizabeth Peter

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Science & Medicine · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticipatory action researchCommunity-based participatory researchResearch ethicsInformed consentEngineering ethicsCitizen journalismSociologyPublic relationsPromotion (chess)Public healthValue (mathematics)PsychologyMedicinePolitical scienceNursingAlternative medicineLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.743
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.748
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.7430.748
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.005
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0270.106
Scholarly communication0.0370.033
Open science0.0150.020
Research integrity0.0840.065
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.938
GPT teacher head0.760
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations362
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueSocial Science & MedicineSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207