Research Note: Ethics of Drug Treatment Research with Court-Supervised Subjects
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The last two decades have seen an acceleration of clinical research on, and treatment advances in, addictive illness. Much important research in this area requires the participation of subjects who themselves suffer from drug dependence and have a strong likelihood of becoming involved in the criminal justice system at some point. However, using court-supervised persons with addictive disorders in drug research raises a number of significant ethical issues. These include, among others, worries about the individual's ability to provide capable, voluntary, informed consent and the obligation of researchers to safeguard sensitive clinical information. A variety of potentially coercive factors can influence court-supervised persons in their decision whether to enter research and can compromise their ability to provide informed consent. In this paper, we explore the ethical issues arising in this research and offer some suggestions for approaches to address these concerns.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.050 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it