Ethical considerations for research conducted with human participants in languages other than English
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considerations for conducting ethical research with human participants in languages other than English are addressed to some extent in regulatory and guiding statements for researchers, but in ways that are minimal or vague. In this article, I examine guiding documents for research ethics from four countries: the UK, Canada, Australia and the USA, with a view to analysing how the issue of research in other languages is addressed. Specific attention is paid to four key aspects of research as it relates to language. The first is informed consent. This includes a discussion of how written forms may not be the most appropriate method to ensure consent is informed. The second aspect of language is that of translation and interpretation, including budgetary implications for research. Third, the use of intermediaries such as (but not limited to) translators and local contacts is considered. Finally, considerations for knowledge mobilisation and dissemination of findings are explored. The article concludes with recommendations for researchers, graduate supervisors and research ethics boards.
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 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 | 0.010 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it