Explore the vast range of titles available.

Double Exposure examines the role of film in shaping social psychology’s landmark postwar experiments. We are told that most of us will inflict electric shocks on a fellow citizen when ordered to do so. Act as a brutal prison guard when we put on a uniform. Walk on by when we see a stranger in need. But there is more to the story. Documentaries that investigators claimed as evidence were central to capturing the public imagination. Did they provide an alibi for twentieth century humanity? Examining the dramaturgy, staging and filming of these experiments, including Milgram's Obedience Experiments, the Stanford Prison Experiment and many more, Double Exposure recovers a new set of narratives.

Ausgehend von dem Argument, dass die Rolle informeller Gespräche in qualitativen Methoden der Sozial- und Bildungsforschung umstritten, aber auch relativ vernachlässigt ist, stellen wir in diesem Artikel dar, wie diese Gespräche unsere Forschungsansätze und -praxis beeinflusst haben. Wir verwenden ein Beispiel aus einer eigenen Studie, um ihre nuancierte und spezifische Natur hervorzuheben und eine Reihe von sich ergebenden ethischen und methodischen Fragen aufzuwerfen und zu hinterfragen. Wir betrachten informelle Gespräche als Möglichkeit, Daten mit \"Kontext\" und \"Authentizität\" zu versehen und andernfalls verpasste Möglichkeiten zur Erweiterung und Anreicherung von Daten zu erschließen. Wir berücksichtigen auch die Rolle von Ethikkommissionen und Ethikrichtlinien sowie die praktischen Auswirkungen und Konsequenzen, die diese für Forscher_innen haben, wenn sie während ihrer Feldarbeit informelle Gespräche führen.

The Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle (JCSM) aims to publish articles with relevance to wasting disorders and illnesses of the muscle in the broadest sense. In order to avoid publication of inappropriate articles and to avoid protracted disputes, the Editors have established ethical guidelines that detail a number of regulations to be fulfilled prior to submission to the journal. This article updates the principles of ethical authorship and publishing in JCSM and its two daughter journals JCSM Rapid Communication and JCSM Clinical Reports. We require the corresponding author, on behalf of all co‐authors, to certify adherence to the following principles: All authors listed on a manuscript considered for publication have approved its submission and (if accepted) approve publication in the journal; Each named author has made a material and independent contribution to the work submitted for publication; No person who has a right to be recognized as author has been omitted from the list of authors on the submitted manuscript; The submitted work is original and is neither under consideration elsewhere nor that it has been published previously in whole or in part other than in form; All authors certify that the submitted work is original and does not contain excessive overlap with prior or contemporaneous publication elsewhere, and where the publication reports on cohorts, trials, or data that have been reported on before the facts need to be acknowledged and these other publications must be referenced; All original research work has been approved by the relevant bodies such as institutional review boards or ethics committees; All relevant conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, that may affect the authors' ability to present data objectively, and relevant sources of funding of the research in question have been duly declared in the manuscript; All authors certify that they will submit the original source data to the editorial office upon request; The manuscript in its published form will be maintained on the servers of the journal as a valid publication only as long as all statements in these guidelines remain true; If any of the aforementioned statements ceases to be true, the authors have a duty to notify as soon as possible the Editor‐in‐Chief of the journal, so that the available information regarding the published article can be updated and/or the manuscript can be withdrawn.

This article details an updated version of the principles of ethical authorship and publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle (JCSM) and its two daughter journals JCSM Rapid Communication and JCSM Clinical Reports. We request of all author sending to the journal a paper for consideration that at the time of submission to JCSM, the corresponding author, on behalf of all co‐authors, needs to certify adherence to these principles. The principles are as follows: all authors listed on a manuscript considered for publication have approved its submission and (if accepted) approve publication in JCSM as provided; each named author has made a material and independent contribution to the work submitted for publication; no person who has a right to be recognized as author has been omitted from the list of authors on the submitted manuscript; the submitted work is original and is neither under consideration elsewhere nor that it has been published previously in whole or in part other than in form; all authors certify that the submitted work is original and does not contain excessive overlap with prior or contemporaneous publication elsewhere, and where the publication reports on cohorts, trials, or data that have been reported on before the facts need to be acknowledged and these other publications must be referenced; all original research work has been approved by the relevant bodies such as institutional review boards or ethics committees; all relevant conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, that may affect the authors' ability to present data objectively, and relevant sources of funding of the research in question have been duly declared in the manuscript; the manuscript in its published form will be maintained on the servers of JCSM as a valid publication only as long as all statements in the guidelines on ethical publishing remain true. If any of the aforementioned statements ceases to be true, the authors have a duty to notify as soon as possible the Editors of JCSM, JCSM Rapid Communication, and JCSM Clinical Reports, respectively, so that the available information regarding the published article can be updated and/or the manuscript can be withdrawn.

This article details an updated version of the principles of ethical authorship and publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle (JCSM). At the time of submission to JCSM, the corresponding author, on behalf of all co‐authors, needs to certify adherence to these principles. The principles are as follows: All authors listed on a manuscript considered for publication have approved its submission and (if accepted) publication as provided to JCSM. No person who has a right to be recognized as author has been omitted from the list of authors on the submitted manuscript. Each author has made a material and independent contribution to the work submitted for publication. The submitted work is original and is neither under consideration elsewhere nor that it has been published previously in whole or in part other than in form. All authors certify that the work is original and does not contain excessive overlap with prior or contemporaneous publication elsewhere, and where the publication reports on cohorts, trials, or data that have been reported on before these other publications must be referenced. All original research work has been approved by the relevant bodies such as institutional review boards or ethics committees. All conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, that may affect the authors' ability to present data objectively, and relevant sources of funding have been duly declared in the manuscript. The manuscript in its published form will be maintained on the servers of JCSM as a valid publication only as long as all statements in the guidelines on ethical publishing remain true. If any of the aforementioned statements ceases to be true, the authors have a duty to notify the Editors of JCSM as soon as possible so that the available information regarding the published article can be updated and/or the manuscript can be withdrawn.

Robotic telepresence is a potential technology to help alleviating the loneliness of elderly people. The impacts of long-term use of telepresence robots in residential care are not well known. We were interested in how using a telepresence robot influences the resident, family members and care workers at a facility, and what challenges and solutions there are for wider adoption of such robots in residential care. With a telepresence robot Double, we arranged a series of three trials in two separate residential care facilities: one 12-week trial in a private facility and two successive 6-week trials in a public facility. In each trial, we installed the telepresence robot in a room of a long-term care home resident for communicating with her/his family members. Based on the results, telepresence robots do increase presence and possibly engagement of family members in residential care, but privacy is a central concern. The mobility of a telepresence robot is hard to utilize in residential care, and to be able to do so, ethical consideration and guidelines are needed. We provide a draft of such ethical guidelines.

Virtual assistants (VAs) have gained widespread popularity across a wide range of applications, and the integration of Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, has opened up new possibilities for developing even more sophisticated VAs. However, this integration poses new ethical issues and challenges that must be carefully considered, particularly as these systems are increasingly used in public services: transfer of personal data, decision-making transparency, potential biases, and privacy risks. This paper, an extension of the work presented at IberSPEECH 2022, analyzes the current regulatory framework for AI-based VAs in Europe and delves into ethical issues in depth, examining potential benefits and drawbacks of integrating LLMs with VAs. Based on the analysis, this paper argues that the development and use of VAs powered by LLMs should be guided by a set of ethical principles that prioritize transparency, fairness, and harm prevention. The paper presents specific guidelines for the ethical use and development of this technology, including recommendations for data privacy, bias mitigation, and user control. By implementing these guidelines, the potential benefits of VAs powered by LLMs can be fully realized while minimizing the risks of harm and ensuring that ethical considerations are at the forefront of the development process.

Background As Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies such as Generative AI (GenAI) have become more common in academic settings, it is necessary to examine how these tools interact with issues of authorship, academic integrity, and research methodologies. The current landscape lacks cohesive policies and guidelines for regulating AI's role in academic research which has prompted discussions among publishers, authors, and institutions. Methods This study employs inductive thematic analysis to explore publisher policies regarding AI-assisted authorship and academic work. Our methods involved a two-fold analysis using both AI-assisted and traditional unassisted techniques to examine the available policies from leading academic publishers and other publishing or academic entities. The framework was designed to offer multiple perspectives, harnessing the strengths of AI for pattern recognition while leveraging human expertise for nuanced interpretation. The results of these two analyses are combined to form the final themes. Results Our findings indicate six overall themes, three of which were independently identified in both the AI-assisted and unassisted, manual analysis using common software tools. A broad consensus appears among publishers that human authorship remains paramount and that the use of GenAI tools is permissible but must be disclosed. However, GenAI tools are increasingly acknowledged for their supportive roles, including text generation and data analysis. The study also discusses the inherent limitations and biases of AI-assisted analysis, necessitating rigorous scrutiny by authors, reviewers, and editors. Conclusions There is a growing recognition of AI's role as a valuable auxiliary tool in academic research, but one that comes with caveats pertaining to integrity, accountability, and interpretive limitations. This study used a novel analysis supported by GenAI tools to identify themes emerging in the policy landscape, underscoring the need for an informed, flexible approach to policy formulation that can adapt to the rapidly evolving landscape of AI technologies.

Background: With the availability of extensive health data, artificial intelligence has an inordinate capability to expedite medical explorations and revamp healthcare.Artificial intelligence is set to reform the practice of medicine soon. Despite the mammoth advantages of artificial intelligence in the medical field, there exists inconsistency in the ethical and legal framework for the application of AI in healthcare. Although research has been conducted by various medical disciplines investigating the ethical implications of artificial intelligence in the healthcare setting, the literature lacks a holistic approach. Objective: The purpose of this review is to ascertain the ethical concerns of AI applications in healthcare, to identify the knowledge gaps and provide recommendations for an ethical and legal framework. Methodology: Electronic databases Pub Med and Google Scholar were extensively searched based on the search strategy pertaining to the purpose of this review. Further screening of the included articles was done on the grounds of the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results: The search yielded a total of 1238 articles, out of which 16 articles were identified to be eligible for this review. The selection was strictly based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria mentioned in the manuscript. Conclusion: Artificial intelligence (AI) is an exceedingly puissant technology, with the prospect of advancing medical practice in the years to come. Nevertheless, AI brings with it a colossally abundant number of ethical and legal problems associated with its application in healthcare. There are manifold stakeholders in the legal and ethical issues revolving around AI and medicine. Thus, a multifaceted approach involving policymakers, developers, healthcare providers and patients is crucial to arrive at a feasible solution for mitigating the legal and ethical problems pertaining to AI in healthcare.

Remote service delivery via telepsychology has become a central feature in the practices of many psychologists in Canada and around the world. Although the provision of telepsychology services offers many benefits, it has also generated a host of unique ethical challenges. In this article, we outline how the principles and values of the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (the Code) provide a comprehensive and cohesive ethical framework that can be used in conjunction with other resources, such as the Canadian Psychological Association Guidelines on Telepsychology, to identify and resolve ethical challenges associated with the practice of telepsychology. Our application of the Code's framework is contextualized within the changing practice landscape of Canadian psychology, recommends practices that help deal with many of the ethical challenges and is consistent with other applications of the Code's framework that have been developed for special populations and practice areas over the years, reflecting the versatility and widespread applicability of the Code. We also demonstrate the application of the framework to an ethical dilemma involving telepsychology to highlight the ethical challenges of telepsychology practice and the value of the Code for psychologists offering services via telepsychology. La prestation à distance de services de psychologie - la télépsychologie - est devenue un aspect central de la pratique de nombreux psychologues au Canada et ailleurs. Si la prestation de services de télépsychologie procure de nombreux avantages, elle a donné lieu à une multitude d'enjeux éthiques tout à fait uniques. Dans cet article, nous expliquons comment les principes et valeurs du Code canadien de déontologie professionnelle des psychologues (le Code) forment un cadre complet et cohérent qui peut être utilisé conjointement avec d'autres ressources, par exemple les Lignes directrices de la SCP sur la télépsychologie, afin d'aider à relever les enjeux éthiques associés à cette nouvelle pratique. Notre application du cadre du Code s'inscrit dans le contexte du paysage en évolution de pratique de la psychologie au Canada, recommande des pratiques qui aident à faire face à bon nombre des enjeux éthiques inhérents à la télépsychologie, et est compatible avec d'autres applications du cadre du Code qui ont été élaborées au fil des ans pour des populations et des domaines d'expertise particuliers, ce qui traduit la souplesse et l'étendue de l'applicabilité du Code. Nous mettons en outre le cadre en application face à un dilemme éthique mettant en jeu la télépsychologie afin de souligner les enjeux éthiques inhérents à cette pratique ainsi que la valeur du Code pour les psychologues qui proposent de tels services. Public Significance Statement With the increasing use of remote service delivery by Canadian psychologists, the potential for new ethical concerns arises. This article outlines how the ethical principles and values of the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists and its suggested ethical decision-making model can be used, in conjunction with other resources, to identify and resolve ethical challenges associated with the practice of telepsychology.