MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210845001 · doi:10.31124/advance.19125350.v1

Ethical Considerations for Discrete Choice Experiments with Caregiving Populations

2022· preprint· en· W4210845001 on OpenAlexaff
Judy Illes, Ashley Lawson, Patrick McDonald

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneralizability theoryVulnerability (computing)Limit (mathematics)Power (physics)PandemicPopulationSocial psychologyPsychologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Positive economicsSociologyEconomicsComputer scienceComputer securityMathematicsMedicineDemographyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We discuss challenges experienced with a discrete choice experiment where the lack of sufficient responses to power analysis may have been due to the vulnerability of the population, added caregiving burdens imposed by the pandemic, and an imbalance of benefit-to-load of participation. We also address considerations for the paradigm where the necessarily few testable attributes may limit cultural meaningfulness and generalizability, and bring into question principles of research ethics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.384
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.442
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.616
Threshold uncertainty score0.759

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3840.442
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.016
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0080.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.335
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.153 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207