MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Teaching and Researching Ethically: Guidance for Instructor-Researchers, Educational Developers, and Research Ethics Personnel

2018· article· en· W2800139708 on OpenAlex
Michelle K. McGinn

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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyScholarshipBioethicsLibrary sciencePolitical scienceHigher educationPedagogyHumanitiesPhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite now long-standing recognition of the value and importance of the scholarship of teaching and learning, questions continue to be raised about how to satisfy the hybrid responsibilities of teaching and research. The key message of this paper is that instructor-researchers, educational developers, and research ethics personnel should consider two key guidance documents in tandem: the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education’s statement on Ethical Principles in University Teaching (Murray, Gillese, Lennon, Mercer, & Robinson, 1996) and the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, & Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, 2014). Together these documents provide much needed guidance for teaching and researching ethically. Bien que la valeur et l’importance de l’avancement des connaissances en enseignement et en apprentissage soient reconnues depuis longtemps, on continue à se poser des questions pour savoir comment satisfaire les doubles responsabilités d’enseignement et de recherche. Le message principal de cet article est que les instructeurs-chercheurs, les conseillers pédagogiques et le personnel d’éthique de la recherche devraient prendre en considération deux documents principaux d’orientation en tandem : la déclaration de la Société pour l’avancement de la pédagogie dans l’enseignement supérieur sur les « Principes éthiques dans l’enseignement universitaire » (Ethical Principles in University Teaching - Murray, Gillese, Lennon, Mercer, & Robinson, 1996) et « Énoncé de politique des trois Conseils : Éthique de la recherche avec des êtres humains » (Conseil de recherches en sciences humaines du Canada, Conseil de recherches en sciences naturelles et en génie du Canada, & Instituts de recherche en santé du Canada, 2014). Ensemble, ces documents fournissent une orientation utile pour enseigner et mener des recherches de manière éthique.

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)0.121
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.187
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1210.187
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0500.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.015
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 head0.367
GPT teacher head0.535
Teacher spread0.167 · 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