MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285800280 · doi:10.1177/15562646221112339

Ethical Considerations for Discrete Choice Experiments with Caregivers

2022· article· en· W4285800280 on OpenAlexaff
Judy Illes, Ashley Lawson, Patrick J. McDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaNeuroDevNetUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsGeneralizability theoryVulnerability (computing)PsychologyResearch ethicsResearch designPopulationApplied psychologyMedicineDevelopmental psychologySociologyPsychiatryComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We discuss research ethics challenges experienced while running a discrete choice experiment administered to caregivers of children with treatment resistant pediatric epilepsy. We highlight ethical considerations around the study design of the discrete choice experimental paradigm that pertain to vulnerability of and caregiving burden on the population, imbalance of benefit-to-load of participation, and limitations of cultural meaningfulness and generalizability.

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 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)0.201
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.123
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2010.123
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.946
GPT teacher head0.726
Teacher spread0.220 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Empirical Research on Human Research EthicsSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207