MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407717920 · doi:10.1002/ajhb.70011

Bioethics Recommendations to Increase Culturally Informed Global Health Survey Research: A Framework for Centering Community Engagement

2025· article· en· W4407717920 on OpenAlexaff
Malcolm Getz, Alicia M. DeLouize, Felicia C. Madimenos, Glorieuse Uwizeye, Zaneta M. Thayer, Luseadra McKerracher, Alejandra Núñez‐de la Mora, J. Josh Snodgrass

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Human Biology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioethicsCommunity engagementPsychologySociologyMedical educationMedicinePublic relationsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Global health projects-a source of inspiration and collaboration for applied human biology-benefit scholars, governments, NGOs, and aid organizations. While such research is intended to improve population health, direct benefits to individuals and communities are often excluded from published works and/or not considered in study designs and framing. This exclusion is increasingly recognized as a colonial legacy that hinders global health equity, particularly for Indigenous and other marginalized populations. Collaboration and community engagement are avenues for addressing these injustices, but they require planning, intention, and resources. Drawing on our collective experience and ongoing dialogues about community engagement in human biology, we propose six recommendations to increase equity in global health research. These include: (1) Incorporating trusted local specialists and stakeholders at all project levels; (2) disseminating health information to participants in strengths-based and culturally meaningful ways and contributing to solutions wherever possible; (3) investing in local healthcare, research, and infrastructure; (4) making study results/data available to stakeholders; (5) working within data frameworks that respect community sovereignty; and, (6) applying culturally informed bioethics frameworks. Our discussion highlights persistent needs to address community rights and benefits and to dismantle colonial legacies within global health and human biology while recognizing structural barriers to implementing these needed changes, particularly within the context of global health projects wherein human biologists are not the main power brokers or resource holders. When interfacing with global health, human biologists must continue to pursue health equity and decolonization through implementing critical, culturally informed bioethics frameworks centering community engagement.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.568
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.491
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.432
Threshold uncertainty score0.532

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5680.491
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.006
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0160.068
Scholarly communication0.0430.053
Open science0.0210.044
Research integrity0.0450.052
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.008

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 head0.815
GPT teacher head0.724
Teacher spread0.091 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Human BiologySame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207