MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410717485 · doi:10.1177/17470161251339785

Amplifying voices, dismantling silences: Ethical praxis in multimodal child-centered research

2025· article· en· W4410717485 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Ethics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChildren's Rights and Participation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersMitacsUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsPraxisMultimodalityMultimodal therapySociologyEngineering ethicsPsychologyAestheticsEpistemologyPsychotherapistArtPhilosophyEngineeringLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research involving children and youth, particularly those from culturally sensitive and vulnerable backgrounds, presents intricate ethical, methodological, and epistemological challenges. While acknowledging parents’ legitimate protective role, unjustified parental gatekeeping often regulates access to minors’ participation and can create tensions between adult-centric authority and minors’ evolving capacity for agency. These ambiguities get further obscured when minors’ self-identified experiences and fluid identities—especially in multilingual and culturally diverse contexts—diverge from parental assumptions or hegemonic discourses surrounding identity and autonomy. In this paper, I critically interrogate these tensions, foreground the limitations of procedural ethics when faced with emergent obstacles, and advocate for adaptive, participant-centered frameworks rooted in dialogic engagement. Drawing on three research projects that I conducted in Canada, I demonstrate how child-engaging, multimodal methodologies can facilitate semiosis and empower minors to articulate their lived realities while safeguarding their emotional safety and agency. In this regard, intersectional reflexivity emerges as a constitutive and vital framework, allowing me to address power asymmetries and ethical dilemmas with situational responsivity. This paper reconceptualizes consent as an iterative and relational process rather than a static obligation by foregrounding minors’ narratives and respecting their welfare. Ultimately, the study contributes to advancing ethically robust and transformative research practices that amplify marginalized voices, dismantle systemic inequities, foster nuanced, inclusive engagements with vulnerable participants, and challenge dominant epistemological hierarchies and centering minors’ perspectives as constitutive of broader social discourse.

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)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, 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 score0.429
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.411
GPT teacher head0.591
Teacher spread0.180 · 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