{"id":"W2169523438","doi":"10.1136/medethics-2011-100461","title":"Ethics policy review: a case study in quality improvement","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Medical Ethics","topic":"Ethics in medical practice","field":"Health Professions","cited_by":13,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"ca_institutions":"Dalhousie University; Hamilton Health Sciences; McMaster University Medical Centre","funders":"","keywords":"Work (physics); Context (archaeology); Quality (philosophy); Publication; Best practice; Public relations; Health care; Process (computing); Engineering ethics; Quality management; Sociology; Political science; Business; Computer science; Engineering; Law; Marketing","routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true,"invisible_to_affiliation_only":false},"retraction":null,"screen":null,"direct_labels":[],"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["metaresearch","research_integrity","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["metaresearch","research_integrity"],"category_scores_codex":[0.4521317,0.0002397862,0.0009537768,0.0002779189,0.0008927888,0.0000108081,0.0008407999,0.003841268,0.0011857],"category_scores_gemma":[0.7285242,0.0001734444,0.0001720392,0.0007164096,0.0004949874,0.0004175632,0.0005510075,0.1297484,0.00009940514],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0007373845,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01963869,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.009015501,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.005977221,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9256965,0.05278621,0.005053037,0.0002879423,0.01494657,0.001229764],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.7659718,0.2200441,0.00452558,0.00120448,0.004801092,0.003452967],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0004652364,0.01184713,0.106314,0.03833598,0.0005316648,0.01844817,0.5880158,0.000002318249,0.00005321195,0.1389917,0.05435638,0.04263842],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.01368515,0.002651134,0.01049611,0.0461305,0.0006608051,0.006642826,0.4945507,0.00004229545,0.000008839587,0.02560866,0.398493,0.001030049],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":"qualitative","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.1430119,0.01354408,0.001457901,0.8307512,0.0052495,0.00143078,0.000004944431,0.00003488911,0.004514763],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.748932,0.04402247,0.0006954831,0.2020881,0.004052556,0.00003473106,8.025804e-7,0.00002967093,0.0001441553],"genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6286631,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9997274,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.4424215357047506,"score_gpt":0.6902163520874726,"score_spread":0.2477948163827219,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","note":"Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed). Scores rank; they never assert a category."}}