A Framework for Negotiating Ethics in Sensitive Settings: Hospice as a Case Study: Table 1.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we explore our role and ethical obligations as human–computer interaction (HCI) researchers who operate in, and design for, sensitive settings. Recognizing a lack of clear ethical direction from any one code of ethics (COE), we analyze across COEs offered by the professional associations related to our team's research backgrounds to develop a framework for exploring ethical dilemmas in HCI research. While the individual COE tended to be overly specific and prescriptive, our framework highlights common concerns, applicable to a broad range of contexts. We then apply this framework to reflect on two ethical dilemmas, we faced during our work with hospice patients and their families. Through this exercise, we demonstrate how the framework can be applied to ethical dilemmas in HCI research. Draws attention to the ethical subtleties of HCI research in sensitive settings Reflects on the role of professional codes of ethics in research design and practice Analyzes professional codes of ethics to create a framework for ethical reflection Illustrates how the framework can be applied to ethical dilemmas in HCI research
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it