记录数据的道德来源并自动化数据管理

IF 6.5 1区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Big Data & Society Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1177/20539517231163174
A. Bernier, Maili Raven-Adams, D. Zaccagnini, B. Knoppers
{"title":"记录数据的道德来源并自动化数据管理","authors":"A. Bernier, Maili Raven-Adams, D. Zaccagnini, B. Knoppers","doi":"10.1177/20539517231163174","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Health organisations use numerous different mechanisms to collect biomedical data, to determine the applicable ethical, legal and institutional conditions of use, and to reutilise the data in accordance with the relevant rules. These methods and mechanisms differ from one organisation to another, and involve considerable specialised human labour, including record-keeping functions and decision-making committees. In reutilising data at scale, however, organisations struggle to meet demands for data interoperability and for rapid inter-organisational data exchange due to reliance on legacy paper-based records and on the human-initiated administration of accompanying permissions in data. The adoption of permissions-recording, and permissions-administration tools that can be implemented at scale across numerous organisations is imperative. Further, these must be implemented in a manner that does not compromise the nuanced and contextual adjudicative processes of research ethics committees, data access committees, and biomedical research organisations. The tools required to implement a streamlined system of biomedical data exchange have in great part been developed. Indeed, there remains but a small core of functions that must further be standardised and automated to enable the recording and administration of permissions in biomedical research data with minimal human effort. Recording ethical provenance in this manner would enable biomedical data exchange to be performed at scale, in full respect of the ethical, legal, and institutional rules applicable to different datasets. This despite foundational differences between the distinct legal and normative frameworks is applicable to distinct communities and organisations that share data between one another.","PeriodicalId":47834,"journal":{"name":"Big Data & Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Recording the ethical provenance of data and automating data stewardship\",\"authors\":\"A. Bernier, Maili Raven-Adams, D. Zaccagnini, B. Knoppers\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20539517231163174\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Health organisations use numerous different mechanisms to collect biomedical data, to determine the applicable ethical, legal and institutional conditions of use, and to reutilise the data in accordance with the relevant rules. These methods and mechanisms differ from one organisation to another, and involve considerable specialised human labour, including record-keeping functions and decision-making committees. In reutilising data at scale, however, organisations struggle to meet demands for data interoperability and for rapid inter-organisational data exchange due to reliance on legacy paper-based records and on the human-initiated administration of accompanying permissions in data. The adoption of permissions-recording, and permissions-administration tools that can be implemented at scale across numerous organisations is imperative. Further, these must be implemented in a manner that does not compromise the nuanced and contextual adjudicative processes of research ethics committees, data access committees, and biomedical research organisations. The tools required to implement a streamlined system of biomedical data exchange have in great part been developed. Indeed, there remains but a small core of functions that must further be standardised and automated to enable the recording and administration of permissions in biomedical research data with minimal human effort. Recording ethical provenance in this manner would enable biomedical data exchange to be performed at scale, in full respect of the ethical, legal, and institutional rules applicable to different datasets. This despite foundational differences between the distinct legal and normative frameworks is applicable to distinct communities and organisations that share data between one another.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47834,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Big Data & Society\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Big Data & Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517231163174\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Big Data & Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517231163174","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

卫生组织使用许多不同的机制来收集生物医学数据,确定适用的道德、法律和机构使用条件,并根据相关规则重新利用数据。这些方法和机制因组织而异,涉及大量专业人力,包括记录保存职能和决策委员会。然而,在大规模重复利用数据的过程中,由于依赖传统的纸质记录和人工启动的数据相关权限管理,组织难以满足数据互操作性和组织间快速数据交换的需求。必须采用可以在众多组织中大规模实施的权限记录和权限管理工具。此外,这些措施的实施方式必须不影响研究伦理委员会、数据访问委员会和生物医学研究组织的细微差别和上下文裁决过程。实现精简的生物医学数据交换系统所需的工具在很大程度上已经开发出来。事实上,只有一小部分核心功能必须进一步标准化和自动化,以实现生物医学研究数据许可的记录和管理,只需最少的人力。以这种方式记录伦理出处将使生物医学数据交换能够在充分尊重适用于不同数据集的伦理、法律和制度规则的情况下大规模进行。尽管不同的法律和规范框架之间存在根本差异,但这适用于彼此共享数据的不同社区和组织。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Recording the ethical provenance of data and automating data stewardship
Health organisations use numerous different mechanisms to collect biomedical data, to determine the applicable ethical, legal and institutional conditions of use, and to reutilise the data in accordance with the relevant rules. These methods and mechanisms differ from one organisation to another, and involve considerable specialised human labour, including record-keeping functions and decision-making committees. In reutilising data at scale, however, organisations struggle to meet demands for data interoperability and for rapid inter-organisational data exchange due to reliance on legacy paper-based records and on the human-initiated administration of accompanying permissions in data. The adoption of permissions-recording, and permissions-administration tools that can be implemented at scale across numerous organisations is imperative. Further, these must be implemented in a manner that does not compromise the nuanced and contextual adjudicative processes of research ethics committees, data access committees, and biomedical research organisations. The tools required to implement a streamlined system of biomedical data exchange have in great part been developed. Indeed, there remains but a small core of functions that must further be standardised and automated to enable the recording and administration of permissions in biomedical research data with minimal human effort. Recording ethical provenance in this manner would enable biomedical data exchange to be performed at scale, in full respect of the ethical, legal, and institutional rules applicable to different datasets. This despite foundational differences between the distinct legal and normative frameworks is applicable to distinct communities and organisations that share data between one another.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Big Data & Society
Big Data & Society SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
10.60%
发文量
59
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Big Data & Society (BD&S) is an open access, peer-reviewed scholarly journal that publishes interdisciplinary work principally in the social sciences, humanities, and computing and their intersections with the arts and natural sciences. The journal focuses on the implications of Big Data for societies and aims to connect debates about Big Data practices and their effects on various sectors such as academia, social life, industry, business, and government. BD&S considers Big Data as an emerging field of practices, not solely defined by but generative of unique data qualities such as high volume, granularity, data linking, and mining. The journal pays attention to digital content generated both online and offline, encompassing social media, search engines, closed networks (e.g., commercial or government transactions), and open networks like digital archives, open government, and crowdsourced data. Rather than providing a fixed definition of Big Data, BD&S encourages interdisciplinary inquiries, debates, and studies on various topics and themes related to Big Data practices. BD&S seeks contributions that analyze Big Data practices, involve empirical engagements and experiments with innovative methods, and reflect on the consequences of these practices for the representation, realization, and governance of societies. As a digital-only journal, BD&S's platform can accommodate multimedia formats such as complex images, dynamic visualizations, videos, and audio content. The contents of the journal encompass peer-reviewed research articles, colloquia, bookcasts, think pieces, state-of-the-art methods, and work by early career researchers.
期刊最新文献
Is there a role of the kidney failure risk equation in optimizing timing of vascular access creation in pre-dialysis patients? From rules to examples: Machine learning's type of authority Outlier bias: AI classification of curb ramps, outliers, and context Artificial intelligence and skills in the workplace: An integrative research agenda Redress and worldmaking: Differing approaches to algorithmic reparations for housing justice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1