MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810409615 · doi:10.3138/cjpe.31143

NorthBEAT’s Capacity-to-Consent Protocol for Obtaining Informed Consent from Youth Evaluation Participants: An Alternative to Parental Consent

2018· article· en· W2810409615 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CareLakehead UniversityNOSM UniversitySt. Joseph's Care Group
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformed consentProtocol (science)Parental consentPsychologyContext (archaeology)Social psychologyMedical educationMedicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Ethical practice compels evaluators to obtain informed consent from evaluation participants. When those participants are minors, parental consent is routinely sought. However, seeking parental consent may not be appropriate in all evaluation contexts. This practice note presents one context (mental health services research in rural Canada) where seeking parental consent for youths’ participation in research was considered unethical and unfeasible. We present a two-step “capacity-to-consent” protocol that we developed to obtain consent from youth participants. This protocol offers an ethical and feasible alternative to seeking parental consent for youth. The implications for evaluation practice are discussed.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.565
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.823
GPT teacher head0.600
Teacher spread0.223 · 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