MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2416987885 · doi:10.1177/070674370004501003

Research Ethics and Forensic Patients

2000· article· en· W2416987885 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Cheryl Regehr, Marlys Edwardh, John Bradford

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaMultiple Sclerosis Society of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyForensic scienceMedicinePsychiatryCriminology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To discuss ethical and legal issues arising from research conducted on forensic psychiatric patients. METHOD: A review of the literature and ethical and legal guidelines related to research ethics with human subjects. CONCLUSION: Forensic patients who are research subjects are particularly vulnerable to coercion and abuse as a result of the dual vulnerabilities stemming from their status as both prisoners and psychiatric patients. Researchers in the area of forensic mental health must carefully consider ethical guidelines and ensure that the rights of participants are respected and upheld.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Citations30
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207