MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2277794504 · doi:10.1177/08918402015003004

Ethical Issues

2002· article· en· W2277794504 on OpenAlexaff
Constance L. Milton, F. Beryl Pilkington

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Science Quarterly · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlourishingHumanismEngineering ethicsMeaning (existential)Nursing researchSituatedPerspective (graphical)Research ethicsSociologyNatural (archaeology)Interpretation (philosophy)Environmental ethicsHealth careHuman scienceEpistemologyPsychologyNursingSocial scienceMedicinePolitical scienceLawSocial psychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is widely accepted that scientific merit and research ethics are closely related. And yet, while the ethical principles that guide research are uncontested, the meaning of scientific merit is open to interpretation based on one's philosophical perspective and research tradition. When adherents of the natural science tradition use the criteria of that tradition to evaluate research situated in the human science tradition, misunderstanding and misjudgment will result. This unfortunate situation has negative implications for the flourishing of human science nursing and, ultimately, may deprive society of opportunities to benefit from humanistic practice aimed at enhancing the quality of life for recipients of healthcare. In such circumstances, it behooves nurses committed to human science nursing to continue to vigorously articulate and pursue their values and ethics concerning nursing research and healthcare.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.005

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.548
Teacher spread0.418 · 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

Citations5
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing Science QuarterlySame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207