Uses of broad consent among diverse populations: A scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The TCPS-2 does not have guidelines for broad consent that include cultural considerations that may be applicable to the priority populations identified by the psychology training clinic. Thus, the objective of the present scoping review is to create a comprehensive list of any research involving the two main concepts under study. The purpose of this scoping review is to examine the use of broad consent among vulnerable populations in Canada, with the intention to identify cultural considerations that may need to be incorporated in the future implementation of broad consent in research. There are two research questions: (1) Have there been any documentations of the use of broad consent among diverse populations in Canada? (2) What are the cultural considerations that need to be incorporated in the implementation of broad consent for future research?
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.308 | 0.269 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.018 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".