MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ethical Considerations in Online Research Methods

2019· book-chapter· en· W4213433559 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

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2019
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFocus Groups and Qualitative Methods
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopularityOnline research methodsAnonymityEthical issuesData collectionResearch ethicsOnline discussionEngineering ethicsPsychologyComputer scienceInternet privacyData scienceSociologySocial psychologyWorld Wide WebEngineeringComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Online research methods are gaining popularity in several disciplines as they offer numerous opportunities that were not feasible before. However, online research methods also present many challenges and complexities that give rise to ethical dilemmas for online researchers and research participants. This chapter discusses key ethical considerations in the four stages of the research process: research design, online data collection methods, data analysis methods, and online communication of research outcomes. Issues of power, voice, identity, representation, and anonymity in online research are discussed. The relationship between information and power and its implications for equity in online research is also examined. Rather than providing prescriptive recommendations, the authors use questioning as a strategic device to foster critical awareness and ethically informed decision-making among online researchers.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.285
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.345
GPT teacher head0.576
Teacher spread0.232 · 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