MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386817765 · doi:10.2196/47884

Ethical Imperatives for Working With Diverse Populations in Digital Research

2023· article· en· W4386817765 on OpenAlexafffund
Jonathan Herington, Kay Connelly, Judy Illes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Internet Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsNeuroDevNetUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of RochesterFaculty of Medicine, University of British ColumbiaMichigan State UniversityNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsConfidentialityAutonomyEngineering ethicsResearch ethicsContext (archaeology)Economic JusticeIndividualismParticipatory action researchDiversity (politics)SociologyInformed consentPublic relationsPolitical scienceMedicineEngineeringLawAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital research methodologies are driving a revolution in health technology but do not yet fully engage diverse and historically underrepresented populations. In this paper, we explore the ethical imperative for such engagement alongside accompanying challenges related to recruitment, appreciation of risk, and confidentiality, among others. We critically analyze existing research ethics frameworks and find that their reliance on individualistic and autonomy-focused models of research ethics does not offer adequate protection in the context of the diversity imperative. To meet the requirements of justice and inclusivity in digital research, methods will benefit from a reorientation toward more participatory practices.

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)0.084
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.211
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0840.211
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.023
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.863
GPT teacher head0.718
Teacher spread0.145 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Internet ResearchSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207