MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146163237 · doi:10.1207/s15327019eb1501_3

How Informed Is Online Informed Consent?

2005· article· en· W2146163237 on OpenAlexaff
Connie K. Varnhagen, Matthew M. Gushta, Jason Daniels, Tara C. Peters, Neil Parmar, Danielle M. Law, Rachel Hirsch, Bonnie Sadler Takach, Tom Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueEthics & Behavior · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFocus Groups and Qualitative Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformed consentPresentation (obstetrics)RecallReading (process)Computer scienceInternet privacyPsychologyMedicineLawAlternative medicinePolitical scienceCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined participants' reading and recall of informed consent documents presented via paper or computer. Within each presentation medium, we presented the document as a continuous or paginated document to simulate common computer and paper presentation formats. Participants took slightly longer to read paginated and computer informed consent documents and recalled slightly more information from the paginated documents. We concluded that obtaining informed consent online is not substantially different than obtaining it via paper presentation. We also provide suggestions for improving informed consent--in both face-to-face and online experiments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.338
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.625
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.662
Threshold uncertainty score0.817

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3380.625
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.030
Scholarly communication0.0140.033
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.341
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.196 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations113
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthics & BehaviorSame topicFocus Groups and Qualitative MethodsFrench-language works237,207