Ethical tensions in research: The influence of metatheoretical orientation on research ethics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT When developing one's own research agenda, early and mid‐career researchers continually negotiate how best to meet ethical standards and resolve ethical constraints using methodologically sound approaches. Often such struggles occur behind closed doors, their outcomes reflected in the institutional language of an ethical review board. This panel seeks to bring these struggles to the forefront by having panelists who study various populations discuss how they approach ethical challenges in their research. Due to the nature of the groups these panelists study, the panel provides a context where the site of ethical struggles, challenges, and tensions are exacerbated. Key issues to be discussed are: informed consent, risks to participants, and research design and dissemination. Discussion of these issues will be oriented around each participant's metatheoretical orientation to research in library and information science (LIS). Adopting such an approach will highlight some of the main challenges when engaging in ethical practices that may not align with institutional standards, as well as denote possible strategies for addressing them.
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 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 | 0.159 | 0.403 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".