MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410521416 · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-77665-6_7

Covert and Overt Discrimination: Implications for Qualitative Research and the Ethics Review Process

2025· book-chapter· en· W4410521416 on OpenAlexaff
Will C. van den Hoonaard

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in business ethics research · 2025
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCovertProcess (computing)PsychologySociologyEpistemologyEngineering ethicsComputer sciencePhilosophyLinguisticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.498
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.603
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 score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4980.603
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0200.074
Scholarly communication0.0300.040
Open science0.0090.019
Research integrity0.0090.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.839
GPT teacher head0.755
Teacher spread0.084 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in business ethics researchSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207