Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nursing research is held to the same ethical standards as all other research involving human participants. Nurses need to understand and apply ethical principles to their own research, as well as to the reading and review of research. The Declaration of Helsinki in 1964 is a statement about ethical principles, initially applied to medical research, but which now guides all types of research. Of the three core principles, the most important is ‘respect of persons’ where the participants' welfare takes precedence over interests of the researchers, society or science. Safeguards to participants are paramount and include strategies to mitigate potential harm related to emotional well-being, impact on employment, financial or social status and more.1 The second core principle is benefice, where researchers should strive to maximise the benefits of research for the wider society while minimising risks to research participants. The final core principle is justice. In this case, researchers should …
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 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 | 0.151 | 0.160 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".