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

Tapping the Perspectives of Children

2004· article· en· W2096397049 on OpenAlexafffund
Faye Mishna, Beverley J. Antle, Cheryl Regehr

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.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0140.030
Scholarly communication0.0130.013
Open science0.0020.013
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.060
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
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

Citations135
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Social WorkSame topicChildren's Rights and ParticipationFrench-language works237,207