MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064863415 · doi:10.1177/0969733007071355

Consent and Assent to Participate in Research from People with Dementia

2006· review· en· W2064863415 on OpenAlexafffund
Susan E. Slaughter, Dixie Cole, Eileen McPhail Jennings, Marlene Reimer

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Ethics · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlzheimer Society
KeywordsInformed consentDementiaDissentPsychologyResearch ethicsMedicineAlternative medicinePsychiatryPolitical scienceLawDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conducting research with vulnerable populations involves careful attention to the interests of individuals. Although it is generally understood that informed consent is a necessary prerequisite to research participation, it is less clear how to proceed when potential research participants lack the capacity to provide this informed consent. The rationale for assessing the assent or dissent of vulnerable individuals and obtaining informed consent by authorized representatives is discussed. Practical guidelines for recruitment of and data collection from people in the middle or late stage of dementia are proposed. These guidelines were used by research assistants in a minimal risk study.

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 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)0.088
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.163
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0880.163
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0090.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.008

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 head0.941
GPT teacher head0.752
Teacher spread0.189 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations148
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing EthicsSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207