Becoming ethical through relational interaction: An examination of a performance among internally displaced persons in Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ethics is a set of moral principles that seeks to guide researchers from harming those they research. These moral principles aim to protect humanity, establish and sustain a progressive value system that respects and promotes human dignity. Although how ethical consideration is envisioned can be universal, how it is enacted and performed can be relative. It is based on certain contingences that are culturally specific and peculiar. In this article, I argue that irrespective of the universality of some ethical considerations, relational interaction becomes a guiding principle that makes how ethical protocols are achieved relative. Relational interaction emphasizes the other over oneself; hence, it is not transactional. It has at its core quality interaction because it does not maximize self-interest to the detriment of the other. Thus, as varied as these ethical issues are, I argue that what stands at the heart of any appropriate ethical protocol is qualitative humanistic interaction established on values of human dignity, respect, quality welfare, empathy and justice. The idea of relational interaction fosters collaboration, understanding, communication and relationship. These universal ethical protocols are advanced in specific ways as cultures interact and people interpret value systems. I investigate how ethical nuances were explored through performances in internally displaced people camps in Nigeria. Ethical protocol is another performance that positions artists to be responsible and be held responsible for moral practices. I conclude that relational interaction poses a dialogic, responsible, accountable and construction of self in relations to alterity and cultural ethos.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".