Strengths, gaps, and future directions on the landscape of ethics-related research for spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spinal cord injury (SCI) affects between 250,000-500,000 people globally each year. While the medical aspects of SCI have received considerable attention in the academic literature, discourse pertaining to its ethical implications is more limited. The experience of SCI is shaped by intersecting demographic and identity factors such as gender, race, and culture that necessitate an intersectional and value-based approach to ethics-related research that is properly situated in context. Given this background, we conducted a content analysis of academic studies exploring the perspectives and priorities of individuals with SCI published in peer-reviewed journals in the decade between 2012-2021. Terms pertaining to SCI and ethics were combined in a search of two major publication databases. We documented overall publication patterns, recruitment and research methods, reporting of demographic variables, and ethics-related discourse. Seventy (70) papers met inclusion criteria and were categorized by their major foci. Findings reveal a gap in reporting of participant demographics, particularly with respect to race and ethnicity, geographic background, and household income. We discuss these person-centered themes and gaps that must be closed in the reporting and supporting of SCI research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".