Ethical Issues of Informed Consent: Students as Participants in Faculty Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Educators may face an ethical dilemma when they conduct research by using their own students as participants. The dual role conflict, coercion, confidentiality, misconstruction, and unawareness of the informed consent documents have been discussed as ethical issues in such faculty research. The educators as the researchers should be aware of these ethical dilemmas and attempt to implement the informed consent effectively. Thus, this article explores the ethical considerations of informed consent for the educational setting that students are recruited in the faculty research. Furthermore, this article represented recommendations for potentially resolving the ethical dilemmas of informed consent surrounding this phenomenon which consisted of eliminating dual role conflict and coercion, guarding confidentiality, and promoting good construction and awareness of the informed consent documents.
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 | 0.561 | 0.630 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.067 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.031 | 0.036 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".