MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380363104 · doi:10.1080/09614524.2023.2213860

Conflict-sensitive research: bringing research ethics into practice

2023· article· en· W4380363104 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

VenueDevelopment in Practice · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResearch ethicsOutreachPublic relationsPower (physics)SociologyConflict of interestConflict resolutionPolitical scienceEngineering ethicsSocial scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite increased attention to research ethics and attempts to counter power imbalances in North-South research partnerships, research in conflict contexts is still not fair and equitable. We argue that conflict sensitivity could conceptually and practically contribute towards this goal. A conflict sensitive research approach includes collaborating with locally-based practitioners in the research design, data collection, analysis and outreach. This would make knowledge production in conflict contexts more ethical, relevant and beneficial to everyone involved.

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)0.250
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.771
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), 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 score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2500.771
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.029
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.007

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 head0.888
GPT teacher head0.732
Teacher spread0.156 · 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