MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380609532 · doi:10.1177/17470161231180829

Who owns your consent? How REBs give away participants’ agency

2023· article· en· W4380609532 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

VenueResearch Ethics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)AutonomyInformed consentContext (archaeology)PermissionPublic relationsQualitative researchPsychologyLawSociologyMedicinePolitical scienceAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We draw on three illustrative vignettes to examine how REBs manage participants’ agency in the context of qualitative research. We ask: Who owns a participant’s consent? Central to informed consent is the principle of Respect for Persons , which privileges the autonomy of individuals to make decisions about what happens (or not) to them. Yet, REBs sometimes require researchers to get permission from organizations to conduct research on their current and former members, even when the research is not about those organizations. Our aim is to raise awareness about the inherent contradictions of this practice and to consider guidelines for determining the appropriateness of involving organizations that may be tangentially connected to the research objectives or potential participants.

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)0.163
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.222
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1630.222
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.008
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.921
GPT teacher head0.720
Teacher spread0.201 · 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