Factors Associated With Payments to Research Participants: A Review of Sociobehavioral Studies at a Large Southern California Research University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Along with a dearth of regulatory guidance, little empirical research has examined factors related to participant payment in research. We conducted a cross-sectional study of 100 institutional review board (IRB)–approved sociobehavioral human subjects research protocols at a large research university in Southern California. The proportion of studies that paid participants differed significantly by type of research ( p < .001) and study population ( p = .009). The average payment amount also differed significantly by study population ( p < .001) and type of participation (in-person vs. remote; p < .001). In addition, studies that required more visits ( p < .001) and more time ( p = .011) paid significantly more than studies with fewer and shorter visits, respectively. These findings provide data to help inform future ethical payment practices.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
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 | 0.489 | 0.582 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.129 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".