MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3086003063 · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-48415-6

Research Ethics for Students in the Social Sciences

2020· book· en· W3086003063 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic integrity and plagiarism
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSimon Fraser UniversityUniversiteit UtrechtUniversiteit LeidenUniversity of CambridgeUniversity of VirginiaU.S. Department of Education
KeywordsSociologyEngineering ethicsSocial sciencePsychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

About the Reader Let's start with you. The audience for this work is you, a student in the social sciences. Many of the problems discussed in this book will probably be new to you, perhaps not entirely, but still. Yet, right from the beginning of your studies, you have been confronted with certain demands, regulations, and procedures, all driven by certain ethical considerations that you're supposed to be aware of and adopt. You're supposed to be trustworthy, reliable, honest, impartial, and objective if you want to call yourself a researcher. Ah yes, but how? It seems you've got some catching up to do. Some, such as Steneck ( Others, such as Sim

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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.343
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0030.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.490
GPT teacher head0.602
Teacher spread0.112 · 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

Quick stats

Citations90
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAcademic integrity and plagiarismFrench-language works237,207