MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W230466808

Research Ethics Boards and Challenges for Public Participation

2009· article· en· W230466808 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Denise Avard, Michèle Stanton-Jean, Roberta L. Woodgate, Daryl Pullman, Raphael Saginur

Bibliographic record

VenueDigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioethicsDeclaration of HelsinkiResearch ethicsTransparency (behavior)Informed consentPublic relationsAccountabilityConfidentialityPolitical scienceHelsinki declarationPublic administrationBusinessMedicineLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Governments increasingly emphasize the importance of public input in processes related to policy and decision making. (1) Over the last decades, public input has become standard practice in, for example, prioritizing the funding of research, (2) health service planning, (3) public health, (4) and on research ethics boards. (5) Prior to implementing a research study, all research protocols must be reviewed and approved. Furthermore, as established by the Nuremberg Code (6) (1947) and the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki (7) (1964), potential research participants are expected to have sufficient knowledge of the research project to make voluntary and informed choices. Research Ethics Boards (REBs) have been instituted to assess the risks and benefits of the research, (8) to review the rights and welfare of the participants, to monitor the informed consent process, and to safeguard the privacy and confidentiality rights of the participants. (9) The principal role of the REB historically has been to review whether the research protocol respects these ethical standards so as to protect the interests of research participants. However, it has become incumbent upon REBs to embrace a wider mandate that includes enhanced transparency and accountability towards the public, to increase public understanding of the issues hand, and to ensure respect for broader community values. UNESCO's guidance documents for establishing and operating REBs serve as a case in point as they embrace this broader vision. In their Guide No. 1 Establishing Bioethics Committees, and in Guide No.2 Bioethics Committees Work: Procedures and Policies, (10) research ethics reviews are deemed the public's business. In Guide no. 1, UNESCO states that, In an increasingly open and critical society, institutions are concerned for their public image. They are concerned about their integrity and reliability. In some countries it creates anxiety to minimize the risk of lawsuits. Committees demonstrate that scientists and health professionals seek guidance from peers, groups and committees in order to share responsibility. (11) Moreover, UNESCO continues that, ... scientific decision-making is no longer simply a one-on-one affair and that researchers and health care personnel must be responsive to a variety of publics. When there are bioethical conflicts, their resolution may not be achieved simply by appealing to scientific and medical judgements alone. Policy decisions will have to be taken that extend far beyond a single researcher or physician's expertise. (12) In light of these statements and to gain a better understanding of the role of community members on REBs, this paper explores several questions: i) Who is the public? ii) Why involve the public? iii) What role should the public representatives play on the REB? iv) Does the public representative need a certain level of education and training to participate on the REB? and v) How are the contributions of the public representatives to the REB evaluated? Each of these questions may have important implications for REBs in determining how best to implement the recommendations regarding the presence of a public or community member on a research ethics board. Although the focus of this article is on these questions, we begin with an overview of the situation of community representation in REBs in Canada. The Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS) advocates the inclusion of at least one person not affiliated with the organization ... who are using the services. (13) Article 1.3 (d) states: The Agencies consider it essential that effective community representation be maintained. Thus as the size of an REB increases beyond the minimum of five members, the number of community representatives should also increase. …

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)0.557
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.531
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5570.531
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0180.061
Scholarly communication0.0360.034
Open science0.0110.028
Research integrity0.0480.053
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.006

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 head0.347
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.125 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library)Same topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207