Informed Consent and Evaluation: 16 to 18 Year Old Participants in Evaluations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ethics policies require parental consent for “children” less than 18 years old. This article examines whether parental consent should be required for youth aged 16 to 18 years. It examines the current position of youth vis-a-vis services, informed-consent requirements, the quality of parental consent, and youths’ legal and developmental capacity to consent. It concludes that youth have the capacity to consent. Recommendations are made to revise the parental-consent policy and to address the impacts of stress, emotion, and inexperience on youth’s decision making at all evaluation process. Les politiques d’ethique exigent le consentement parental pourles « enfants » âges de moins de 18 ans. Cet article examine si le consentement parental devrait etre exige pour les jeunes âges de 16 a 18 ans. Il examine la position actuelle des jeunes vis-a-vis des services, les conditions de consentement eclaire, la qualite de consentement parental, et la capacite legale et developpementale des jeunes a consentir. Il conclut que les jeunes ont la capacitea consentir. Des recommandations s’ensuivent pour reviser la politique de consentement parental et adresser les impacts du stress, de l’emotion, et de l’inexperience dans la prise de decision des jeunes a tout processus d’evaluation.
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 | 0.232 | 0.266 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".