MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106177048 · doi:10.1177/1049732302239415

Consent in Oral History Interviews: Unique Challenges

2003· article· en· W2106177048 on OpenAlexaff
Geertje Boschma, Olive Yonge, Lorraine Mychajlunow

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOral historyInformed consentWarrantQualitative researchResearch ethicsPsychologySemi-structured interviewProcess (computing)MedicineEngineering ethicsMedical educationSociologyAlternative medicineSocial sciencePsychiatryEngineeringAnthropologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The literature on oral history methods has increased over the past decade. Yet, the issues in gaining consent warrant specific attention. The process of gaining consent in oral history interviews has unique features and varies from accepted procedures in qualitative research. The authors discuss the legalities and ethics of oral history interviews and provide examples regarding the consent process from an oral history project that they conducted. The researchers conclude that despite its complexity, presenting the transcribed interview to the interviewee contributes in an important way to the ethical integrity of the interview process.

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 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)0.277
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.565
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2770.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.950
GPT teacher head0.763
Teacher spread0.187 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations23
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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