MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998737010 · doi:10.1177/1474904119896506

Introduction: Ethical issues in educational research

2020· article· en· W2998737010 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Educational Research Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDignityEngineering ethicsBureaucracyPossession (linguistics)Research ethicsHumanityEthical issuesEducational researchPolitical scienceSociologyPublic relationsEnvironmental ethicsSocial scienceLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This special issue of the European Educational Research Journal (EERJ) addresses the issues surrounding current concerns regarding the ethical conduct of research in education. The impetus for ethical regulation of educational research has come from our institutions; therefore, by its very nature it is bureaucratic and often perceived by researchers as obstructive and even unethical. The papers herein tackle these problematic matters by interrogating the difficult questions surrounding ethical processes and charting academics’ experiences of and reactions to them. The issue argues that academics need to take possession of this debate through practice so that it becomes an aid to research, enhancing the conduct of research and the dignity, privacy and humanity of researchers and their participants.

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)0.105
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.389
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1050.389
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.062
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0700.033

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 head0.575
GPT teacher head0.676
Teacher spread0.101 · 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