MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096397049 · doi:10.1177/1473325004048025

Tapping the Perspectives of Children

2004· article· en· W2096397049 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Social Work · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChildren's Rights and Participation
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsObligationQualitative researchHarmDignityResearch ethicsContext (archaeology)Informed consentMoral obligationPsychologyEngineering ethicsSociologySocial psychologyPolitical scienceMedicineLawSocial sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The unique ethical issues related to conducting research with children are insufficiently distinguished from issues in working with vulnerable groups, despite a shift to recognizing children as active in the research process. Qualitative researchers are challenged to consider complex ethical issues related to children and are obligated to protect their rights, freedoms, safety, and dignity. While some issues are similar to those in any research context, the nature of the researcher-participant relationship, and the unstructured nature of qualitative research methods, add a dimension of risk. This article examines ethical issues in qualitative research with children: (1) consent and assent; (2) the obligation to protect children from harm while respecting

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.273
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.354 · 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