MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2485802325 · doi:10.1093/inthealth/ihw028

Ethics of emergent information and communication technology applications in humanitarian medical assistance

2016· review· en· W2485802325 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Health · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitarian aidInformation and Communications TechnologyContext (archaeology)HarmWarrantPublic relationsPolitical scienceHumanitarian crisisBusinessLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New applications of information and communication technology (ICT) are shaping the way we understand and provide humanitarian medical assistance in situations of disaster, disease outbreak or conflict. Each new crisis appears to be accompanied by advancements in humanitarian technology, leading to significant improvements in the humanitarian aid sector. However, ICTs raise ethical questions that warrant attention. Focusing on the context of humanitarian medical assistance, we review key domains of ICT innovation. We then discuss ethical challenges and uncertainties associated with the development and application of new ICTs in humanitarian medical assistance, including avoiding harm, ensuring privacy and security, responding to inequalities, demonstrating respect, protecting relationships, and addressing expectations. In doing so, we emphasize the centrality of ethics in humanitarian ICT design, application and 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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.552
Teacher spread0.419 · 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