MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7127592923 · doi:10.51847/xwrlaib83c

Navigating Ethical Standards in International Health Research: Insights Drawn from Qualitative Engagements with Persons with Disabilities in Uganda

2025· article· W7127592923 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cho Min-jung, Park Hyun-soo

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Journal of Ethics in Health and Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResearch ethicsQualitative researchEthical standardsEthical issuesInformed consentEthical codeBioethicsConfidentiality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As Canadian investigators engaged in a qualitative project involving adults with and without disabilities in Uganda, we secured approval from four research ethics boards—two based in Canada and two located in Uganda. Ethical oversight in Canada is guided by the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS2), while Ugandan researchers adhere to the National Guidelines for Research Involving Humans as Research Participants (NGRU). Despite obtaining authorizatio

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)0.145
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.192
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.767

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1450.192
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0380.065
Scholarly communication0.0260.017
Open science0.0060.029
Research integrity0.0060.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.280
GPT teacher head0.598
Teacher spread0.318 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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 abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Journal of Ethics in Health and MedicineSame topicDisability Rights and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207