MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2336072109 · doi:10.21432/t2hs5g

Leaving the Nest: The Evolution of CHRPP (the Course of Human Participant Protection) | Quitter le nid : l’évolution du cours d’éthique sur la protection des participants humains

2016· article· en· W2336072109 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Denise Stockley, Laura-Lee Balkwill, Carolyn Hoessler

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Learning and Technology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersQueen's University
KeywordsLibrary scienceHumanitiesSociologyPolitical scienceArtComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Four years ago [Institution Name] University launched an online tutorial called CHRPP, the Course in Human Research Participant Protection, and published a paper based about its purpose, design, and usability in (Authors, 2009). CHRPP was originally created to raise awareness among research students about the federal policy regarding research ethics and to encourage ethical research practices. Self-assessments and interactive activities were built into the tutorial to help achieve our goals. Since the first publication CHRPP has been updated based on user feedback from a user satisfaction survey. The generally positive reception of this innovative tutorial led to it serving as the basis of a new national research ethics tutorial hosted by the Government of Canada’s Panel on Research Ethics. This paper summarizes the evolution of CHRPP from a homegrown solution for [Institution Name] University to an essential piece of Canada’s national research ethics education program. En 2008, l’Université Queen’s a lancé un tutoriel en ligne nommé CHRPP (Course in Human Research Participant Protection, cours sur la protection des participants humains à la recherche) et publié un article sur son objectif, sa conception et sa convivialité dans Balkwill, Stevenson, Stockley et Marlin (2009). Le CHRPP a été créé pour sensibiliser les étudiants qui font de la recherche sur la politique fédérale relative à l’éthique de recherche et pour favoriser les pratiques éthiques de recherche. Des autoévaluations et des activités interactives ont été intégrées au tutoriel pour nous aider à atteindre nos objectifs. Depuis sa première publication, le CHRPP a été mis à jour en se basant sur la rétroaction tirée d’une enquête sur la satisfaction des utilisateurs. La réception généralement positive qu’a reçue ce tutoriel innovateur lui a valu de servir de base pour un nouveau tutoriel national en éthique de la recherche qu’héberge le Groupe consultatif en éthique de la recherche du gouvernement du Canada. Cet article résume l’évolution du CHRPP qui, d’une solution maison pour un établissement est devenu une partie essentielle du programme national canadien d’éducation en éthique de la recherche.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Learning and TechnologySame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207