Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article identifies and discusses ethical dilemmas inherent when undertaking research with children or other vulnerable populations: power relations, risks and benefits, and informed consent and confidentiality (Maguire, 2005). Ethical dilemmas often arise when researchers attempt to merge the interests of their research and the interests of their child participants. Classroom ethnography is offered as one example of how research can be conducted with children in a way that minimizes these ethical dilemmas. A case study is described in order to exemplify specifically how children respond when fully valued as speaking personalities and co-investigators. Conducted over a period of eight months, the inquiry and its participants moved through five phases that included initiating, exploring, implementing, adopting, and reflecting. Results suggest that legitimate consent, minimized risk, maximized benefit, and shared power through ownership, choice, and social action are of paramount importance when researchingwithchildren or any other vulnerable population.
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 | 0.098 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".