A Qualitative Multi-Methods Research Protocol: Applied Research Ethics in the Middle East North Africa Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In generating new knowledge in all fields related to human subjects research, research ethics is key. The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region has witnessed a remarkable increase in research involving human participants, but robust contextually relevant guidelines and local capacity to guide ethical research are lacking. The research protocol presented and discussed here represents the methodology used to assess the landscape of applied research ethics in the region from the narratives of several constituencies in the research process, namely researchers, research ethics committee chairs and directors of research institutions. The study is a three-year multi-phase, multi-method research which involved a sequence of phases starting with a desk review, writing country reports, focus groups, and in-depth interviews, followed by a regional survey. The lead research team worked with country teams in 6 sites in the MENA region to conduct the empirical research which will be described in detail and reflected on for rigor and challenges.
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 | 0.701 | 0.237 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.009 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".