{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp04_retrieval_first_paired20_20260802","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__linguistics_semiotics","hypothesis_id":"H2","search_queries":["speech recordings secondary use ethics expedited review corpus repository access","oral history audio recordings secondary research IRB exemption official guidance","linguistic corpus controlled access ethics application voice recordings repository","voice data secondary use risk tiered access research consent de-identified","site:hhs.gov expedited review category 5 research materials data recordings secondary use","automated data access approval consent codes secondary research Data Use Ontology GA4GH","Five Safes tiered access data repository application risk assessment secondary use","patent automated ethics review research data access consent risk classification"],"sources":[{"source_id":"C1","title":"Expedited Review: Categories of Research that may be Reviewed Through an Expedited Review Procedure (1998)","publisher":"U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Human Research Protections","url":"https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/categories-of-research-expedited-review-procedure-1998/index.html","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","claims_supported":["Federal guidance already defines expedited-review categories covering qualifying research with existing materials, voice recordings, language, communication, interviews, and oral history.","Risk-based routing to expedited rather than convened review is established human-subjects practice."]},{"source_id":"C2","title":"Secondary Research","publisher":"NIH Intramural Research Program Institutional Review Board","url":"https://irbo.nih.gov/irb-review/secondary-research/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["NIH prospectively distinguishes secondary uses needing approval from anonymized, public, or otherwise qualifying uses that do not need approval, although some still require an exemption submission.","Consent compatibility, identifiability, new risks, privacy, and confidentiality determine the appropriate pathway.","NIH acknowledges repeated procedural work: identifiable secondary use generally requires a separate protocol, and even some activities outside IRB approval require an exemption request."]},{"source_id":"C3","title":"Designating Scientific Data for Controlled Access","publisher":"National Institutes of Health","url":"https://grants.nih.gov/policy-and-compliance/policy-topics/sharing-policies/dms/privacy/designating-scientific-data-controlled-access","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","claims_supported":["NIH recommends risk-sensitive access controls based on consent limits, sensitivity, re-identification risk, group harm, and institutional review.","De-identification alone does not establish low risk, while genuinely very-low-risk data may be shared openly after institutional review."]},{"source_id":"C4","title":"Guideline for Research Involving Audio, Video, or Digital Recordings","publisher":"Chapman University Institutional Review Board","url":"https://www.chapman.edu/research/integrity/irb/_files/audio-video-digital-recording-guidance.pdf","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["This speech-recording-specific policy already routes secondary analysis toward expedited review when the new purpose is related to the original purpose and the recording poses no added participant risk.","It routes materially different purposes or risky recording content to full review and checks original consent, confidentiality, destruction, and possible re-consent.","Applicants submit the original consent with a common determination or review application, closely matching a risk-tiered intake mechanism."]},{"source_id":"C5","title":"CAVA Repository","publisher":"University College London Library Services","url":"https://www.ucl.ac.uk/library/digital-collections/collections/cava","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","claims_supported":["A first-party speech and audiovisual repository already uses tiered dissemination, user verification, authorization, licensing, and additional dataset restrictions.","A single user-licence application supplies access to material without further restrictions, while sensitive material receives additional controls."]},{"source_id":"C6","title":"MuSSeL Access","publisher":"University of Utah L2TReC","url":"https://l2trec.utah.edu/learner-corpora/mussel/access-mussel.php","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","claims_supported":["A speech corpus already assigns different application requirements to temporary browser access and full downloadable access.","Full access requires an NDA, project description, proof of IRB approval or exemption, and sometimes a material-transfer agreement, demonstrating both risk-tiering and multi-step approval burden."]},{"source_id":"C7","title":"Longform recordings of everyday life: Ethics for best practices","publisher":"Behavior Research Methods","url":"https://chatterlab.uchicago.edu/lab-publications/Cychosz_et_al_2020_Longform_recordings_of_everyday_life_Ethics_for_best_practices_BRM.pdf","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["Speech-recording ethics practice already recommends tiered consent choices for sharing audio and for secondary research questions.","The paper documents repositories with public, member-only, secure-additional-approval, and embargoed access levels while emphasizing risks from incidental content, cultural context, and participant preferences."]},{"source_id":"C8","title":"Data Use Ontology (DUO)","publisher":"Global Alliance for Genomics and Health","url":"https://www.ga4gh.org/product/data-use-ontology-duo/","source_class":"STANDARD","claims_supported":["A neighboring sensitive-data domain already standardizes machine-readable permitted-use terms to reduce uncertainty and streamline data-access committee decisions.","DUO explicitly supports automation and expedited researcher access while preserving consent-use restrictions."]}],"proximity":"ESTABLISHED_PRACTICE","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Chapman University risk-tiered review of archived recordings","similarity":"Very high: it is domain-specific, uses the secondary-use application as the unit, sends related low-risk uses toward expedited review, and retains full review for changed purpose, recording risk, consent, and confidentiality concerns.","remaining_difference":"The source does not document a cross-repository single-intake service, an explicit community-harm exception taxonomy, or the proposed 30% speed and twelve-month safety evaluation.","source_ids":["C4"]},{"name":"Common Rule and NIH exemption/expedited secondary-research pathways","similarity":"High: established governance already prospectively sorts low-risk secondary research into exemption, expedited, or fuller review using identifiability, consent compatibility, purpose, and risk.","remaining_difference":"These pathways are generic rather than designed as a shared speech-corpus intake with speaker- and community-specific exception rules.","source_ids":["C1","C2","C3"]},{"name":"Tiered speech-corpus access at CAVA, MuSSeL, HomeBank, and Databrary","similarity":"High at the repository layer: these practices vary access and application requirements with data sensitivity, user status, permitted use, and download capability.","remaining_difference":"Repository access authorization is not necessarily the same decision as institutional ethics approval, and the sources do not report elimination of duplicated collection-level review.","source_ids":["C5","C6","C7"]},{"name":"GA4GH Data Use Ontology","similarity":"Moderate-to-high neighboring-domain match: it standardizes consent-based use conditions so access requests can be assessed consistently, partly automated, and expedited.","remaining_difference":"DUO concerns genomics and health data rather than speech-specific identifiability, contextual disclosure, and community harms.","source_ids":["C8"]}],"overlapping_components":["Prospective low-risk versus exception-case classification","Expedited, exempt, or lighter review lane","Full review for elevated consent, identity, confidentiality, or purpose-change risk","Reuse of original consent and permitted-use information","Single application or user-registration intake in some repository workflows","Tiered controlled access","Researcher identity and affiliation verification","Nondisclosure, licensing, and access-control safeguards","Speaker-content and incidental-disclosure risk assessment","Community or group-harm consideration","Machine-readable permitted-use classification in a neighboring domain"],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"A standardized single-intake pathway shared across speech repositories and reviewing institutions, with predefined speaker- and community-risk exceptions, will reduce eligible application decision time by at least 30% without increasing material consent, privacy, or access-control deviations over twelve months.","claim_falsifier":"The contrastive claim would be falsified by locating a pre-existing speech-reuse program with the same shared intake, prospective exception rules, and comparable safety-and-timeliness evaluation, or by a controlled pilot showing less than 30% faster decisions or any material increase in protected-purpose deviations.","problem_support":"MODERATE","recommendation":"DIFFUSION_LANE","world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded eight-query, eight-source ordinary-web review expressly does not establish or imply a world-novelty conclusion; it shows that the core risk-tiered expedited-review mechanism is established practice, while leaving only the speech-specific cross-repository standardization and measured performance claim unresolved."}