Undantag från kravet på etikprövning av humanistisk och samhällsvetenskaplig forskning. En internationell utblick
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Swedish ethical review system has recently come under heavy criticism - criticism that has largely centered on the system’s negative impact on research in the humanities and social sciences. Among other things, it has been claimed that the requirement for ethical review is unnecessarily comprehensive. One way of exploring the reasonableness of the Swedish system is to compare it with the rules and considerations found in other jurisdictions regarding the type of research project that needs to undergo ethical review. This study compares the Swedish system with a sample of systems found in Europe, the USA, Canada, and Australia. A number of exemptions from the requirements of ethical review are identified and discussed. These exemptions that can serve as a starting point for further analyses and changes to the Swedish system.
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 | 0.033 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.040 |
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".