Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper is a report of a study to document researcher, healthcare provider and programme administrators' experiences with ethical issues in research with homeless youths in North America. BACKGROUND: While there are legal and ethical guidelines for research with adolescents and with vulnerable populations in general, there are no specific guidelines for the ethical conduct of research with homeless youths. METHODS: Using a web-based questionnaire, healthcare and social service providers, programme administrators and researchers working with homeless young people throughout the United States of America and Canada were surveyed in 2005. The survey group consisted of 120 individuals; a total of 72 individuals completed the survey. Survey questions included experiences with using incentives in research with homeless youths, consent and experiences with ethics review boards. Numerical data were analysed using frequencies and cross-tabulations. Text data were analysed qualitatively. FINDINGS: Researchers doing mental health and/or substance use research tended to use money as a research incentive, whereas healthcare providers and programme administrators tended to use non-monetary incentives. The majority of respondents reported using written consent for research from homeless youths, including minors. Respondents reporting difficulties with ethics review boards were mainly involved with intervention research. CONCLUSION: Consensus is needed from a variety of stakeholders, including homeless youths and service providers, on use of various types of research incentives for different types of research, as well as use of consent for homeless youths who are minors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.368 | 0.281 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".