MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144720490 · doi:10.1177/1556264615575509

I’m Positive, But I’m Negative

2015· article· en· W2144720490 on OpenAlexafffund
Clinton L. Rautenbach, Graham Lindegger, Catherine Slack, Melissa Wallace, Peter A. Newman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNegotiationInformed consentFocus groupThematic analysisPsychologyProcess (computing)Key (lock)Empirical researchSocial psychologyQualitative researchSociologyMedicinePolitical scienceEpistemologyComputer scienceAlternative medicineLawSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

HIV vaccine trials (HVTs) are ethically complex, and sound informed consent processes should facilitate optimal decision-making for participants. This study aimed to explore representations of critical HVT-related concepts to enhance the consent process. Four focus group discussions were conducted with participants from key constituencies at a South African HVT site. Thematic analysis was employed to identify representations of key HVT-related concepts. The findings suggest that (potential) participants may negotiate multiple, competing versions of HVT-related concepts in a somewhat unrecognized process, which may have significant implications for the consent process. Stakeholders involved in consent and engagement activities at sites should be assisted to elicit, engage, and resolve competing representations of HVT-related concepts. More empirical research is needed to explore how such stakeholders address competing representations in their interactions with potential participants.

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)0.251
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.654
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.436
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2510.654
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.090
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.969
GPT teacher head0.799
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations20
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Empirical Research on Human Research EthicsSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207