MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099646254 · doi:10.17169/fqs-5.2.615

Research Ethics and Practitioners: Concerns and Strategies for Novice Researchers Engaged in Graduate Education

2008· article· en· W2099646254 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueForum: Qualitative Social Research (Freie Universität Berlin) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Science and Policy Research
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, practitioner research has gained prominence in academic literature and in graduate programs. This has led to increased attention to the ethical complexities of research that interconnects with professional practice. Many practitioner-researchers struggle to plan research that simultaneously satisfies their intellectual curiosity, the ethical standards of their professional practice, and their institutional research ethics boards. These struggles are particularly evident for new researchers, including those engaged in graduate study. In this paper, we identify ethical tensions for novice practitioner-researchers enrolled in a graduate research course. The paper is intended to contribute to conversations about teaching research ethics in graduate education. URN: urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs040263

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)0.069
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
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 score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0690.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0180.011
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.006
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 head0.817
GPT teacher head0.670
Teacher spread0.147 · 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