MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080385200 · doi:10.1177/1077800407308915

Research Ethics Boards as Spaces of Marginalization

2007· article· en· W2080385200 on OpenAlexaffabout
Donna Patterson

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Inquiry · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchSociologyResearch ethicsContext (archaeology)Affect (linguistics)Focus (optics)Engineering ethicsPublic relationsEpistemologyPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article complicates how Canadian universities are pressured to capitalize on research and how these same pressures affect both the collaborative and community-based research within the academy by privileging one type of research and relationships within community over others. Through examining historical influences on Research Ethics Boards in Canada, ways these pressures shape qualitative research and disturb how and what we know, as well as what can be known about who and how we work move in and out of focus. Questions are raised about living ethically as qualitative researchers within an institutional context.

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)0.081
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.104
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0810.104
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0540.134
Scholarly communication0.0310.017
Open science0.0030.029
Research integrity0.0050.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.733
GPT teacher head0.737
Teacher spread0.005 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations15
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative InquirySame topicQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFrench-language works237,207