MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153160430 · doi:10.3390/laws3030509

From Research “Involving” Humans to Research “Affecting” Humans: A Proposal for a Principled Expansion of Research Ethics’ Jurisdiction to Create Traction for a Philosophy of Technology

2014· article· en· W2153160430 on OpenAlexaff
Madelaine Saginur

Bibliographic record

VenueLaws · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEngineering ethicsResearch ethicsJurisdictionPoliticsField (mathematics)SociologyInformation ethicsPolitical scienceLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The field of research ethics offers a new approach to addressing the issues created by the unchecked development of technology. Research ethics could make a contribution, both substantively and procedurally, to help create a framework for reviewing the social and political consequences of actual or proposed technological developments. This paper puts forth a proposal for a principled expansion of research ethics’ jurisdiction, specifically a move from “Research Involving Humans” to “Research Affecting Humans”, and undertakes a case study of “Web 2.0” to analyze whether a philosophy of technology based on research ethics might work.

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)0.095
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.206
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, 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 score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0950.206
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.624
GPT teacher head0.641
Teacher spread0.016 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLawsSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207