Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Three national Canadian granting agencies jointly developed and promulgated common set of guidelines for the treatment of human subjects in all research. These guidelines apply equally to humanists and social scientists as well as to clinical and biomedical researchers. This paper reports the 2001 response to national questionnaire to assess compliance of humanists to the new Canadian regulations, the impact of the regulations humanists, and recommendations to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The preliminary findings indicate gap in the knowledge of the humanities' research community with regard to the policies and procedures of the ethical review of research involving human participants and the understanding of the Research Ethics Boards impact the nature of research conducted by the humanities. Introduction In 1997, after four years of consultation with the Canadian academic community, Canada's three national research funding agencies-the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), the Medical Research Council, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)-issued the Tri-Council Policy Statement Ethics in Human Research (TCPS). The councils required that Canadian universities and health research institutions implement the policy framework by autumn 1999 and apply it to all research funded by these three groups. In 2002, the three councils established the Inter-Agency Panel Research Ethics (PRE) to continue monitoring this process. This paper reports the results of survey the impact of the TCPS humanities scholars in Canada and raises questions about research practices in the humanities and the role of Research Ethics Board (REBs) also known as Institutional Research Boards (IRBs). The importance of this study is its findings about the lack of awareness of the TCPS or resistance to the application of what is perceived as biomedical, clinical model to research in the humanities, fine arts, and social sciences. This resistance to the ethical review of their research activities amongst humanists is not unique to Canada and serves as an alert to IRBs and sponsors with regard to compliance issues. Standards for Ethical Conduct of Research In The Humanities To 1997 In 1977, the Canada Council, the precursor to SSHRC, issued report entitled Ethics: Report of the Consultative Group Ethics. The Consultative Group was to advise on the application of general ethics principles that should be observed by researchers in the humanities and social sciences, (p. iv) including the creation of a common ethical code which institutions will be asked to apply. It also was to address the composition of institutional committees and procedures to be used by these committees. The Consultative Group (1977, p. 1) struggled to strike a proper balance between respect for the rights and sensibilities of the individual or collectivity and society's need for advancement of knowledge. The Consultative Group was prescient in its recognition that the economist, linguist, demographer, political scientist, and criminologist-even the historian, biographer, and archaeologist ... gather data through direct and indirect contact with people and can have an impact their lives. It is not therefore the discipline that determines the presence or absence of ethical considerations, but whether or not the methodology employed results in the research having direct impact human beings. (p. 5) The Consultative Group reinforced the principle that humanists must be alerted to the possibilities of ethical conflict in their work. This report became the basis for SSHRC's policy ethics for research involving human participants until 1997. 1999 Tri-Council Policy Statement The TCPS Ethics for Research Involving Human Subjects had lengthy gestation period. The Medical Research Council, reflecting the internationalization of standards of biomedical and clinical research, recognized need to revise its research ethics policies and, since underlying ethical principles are common to all disciplines, convinced SSHRC and NSERC of the reasonableness of common policy. …
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Research integrity Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: yes | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: yes | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
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 | 0.054 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.041 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".