RESEARCH REFLECTIONS Beyond seeking informed consent: Upholding ethical values within the research proposal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Congratulations! After weeks of conceptualizing, writing and revising, you have finally arrived at the final version of a research proposal. So, what’s next? Before implementing the study, all research involving human subjects is required to undergo a formal process to seek research ethics approval from a Research Ethics Board (REB) in Canada. Seeking research ethics approval goes far beyond submitting a well-written informed consent form. The purpose of this article is to describe the ethical values that underlie many aspects of the research proposal that would be subject to review by the research ethics board committee members. An investigator needs to take these values into consideration when planning the research study and preparing the ethics board application.
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 | 0.403 | 0.620 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.072 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.033 | 0.045 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.038 | 0.092 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
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".