MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W8150261 · doi:10.1093/pch/9.2.81a

Ethics and accountability in the Canadian Paediatric Society

2004· article· en· W8150261 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Elizabeth Moreau

Notice bibliographique

RevuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueChild and Adolescent Health
Établissements canadiensCanadian Paediatric Society
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAccountabilityPolitical scienceEngineering ethicsMedicinePublic administrationEnvironmental ethicsLawEngineeringPhilosophy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Accountability has become the watchword of the Canadian voluntary sector in recent years. Particularly since the release of the 1999 report of the Panel on Accountability and Governance in the Voluntary Sector (1), chaired by former New Democratic Party leader Ed Broadbent, charities and other not-for-profit organizations have faced internal and external pressures to demonstrate effectiveness and show stakeholders that they are indeed fulfilling their missions and mandates. Accountability involves much more than balance sheets or program reports. Voluntary sector organizations like the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) are complex systems accountable to an increasing number of different populations for a variety of activities. The CPS is active in professional development, providing health information for professionals and the public, public policy advocacy, and much more. We're responsible to members, government, corporate sponsors, the wider health care community and the public at large, all of whom look to the CPS to help make decisions about children's health. As an organization representing physicians and providing health information, the CPS is in a position of public trust. Like other voluntary sector organizations, we are self-governing, run by a board of directors. To really demonstrate accountability, we must continue to improve our stakeholders' understanding of what we do and how we do it. We need policies and procedures that are transparent, sound governance practices that ensure effective organizational stewardship, and meaningful mechanisms for evaluating programs and reporting results. Organizations like the CPS are effective because of the hundreds of people who devote their time and energy to making it work. Paediatricians and others from across the country – such as members of the Board of Directors and committees, the Paediatrics & Child Health editorial board, spokespeople and expert reviewers – contribute their expertise and energy to allow the CPS to function as an advocate for children and youth. All of these people bring with them their own values and experiences, which is both priceless and problematic. How can the organization ensure that regardless of one's personal ethics, everyone working on its behalf upholds a certain ethical standard? One of the tools the Broadbent report recommends that organizations have in their ‘accountability toolbox’ is a code of conduct (1). As practicing paediatricians, CPS members already have a code of ethics to guide them. Physicians adhere to a largely self-regulated yet comprehensive set of ethical standards developed by the Canadian Medical Association. The Canadian Medical Association's Code of Ethics (2) details 43 responsibilities, to the patient, society and the medical profession. However, although the code is designed to govern the behaviour of individual physicians, it does not address responsibilities in the context of a volunteer professional association. While many associations have developed profession-specific codes of ethics, few have addressed the needs of the organizations themselves. The CPS recently became one of these few when, in November 2003, it approved an organizational code of ethics that articulates a set of standards for the organization, its volunteers and staff. The year-long development process involved the Board of Directors and committee representatives, as well as broad-based consultation with members at large. The goal was to develop a document that would reflect the values of the organization and help everyone working on behalf of the CPS to make ethically sound decisions. The code is also intended as an expression of our mission, and as a tool to help us continue to work toward that mission. To develop the code, we looked at the range of issues facing the CPS that have ethical dimensions. There are many: How should we deal with conflicts of interest among volunteers? How do we ensure that our program and advocacy priorities are in the best interests of children and youth? Who speaks on behalf of the organization? How do we evaluate the appropriateness of our corporate sponsors? These are just a few of the issues facing the CPS. The code is comprehensive, addressing areas such as governance, financial accountability, public affairs and communications, public policy advocacy, medical and professional affairs, fundraising and human resources. It describes specifics such as how the Board should function, the principles of professional development and the parameters of fundraising. The code is but one tool among many to ensure accountability, and it is not an end in itself. Perhaps even more crucial are evaluation and implementation frameworks that will allow the code to become a living document – part of the organization's day-to-day operations – so that questions about ethics are as routine as questions about budget or deadlines. These elements will be developed over the coming year and will continue to evolve to meet the changing needs of the environment we work in. In the meantime, all areas of the CPS, including Paediatrics & Child Health, can begin the process by reviewing current policies and procedures in light of the code and determining the need for new policies where none currently exist. It's a way of taking the ethical pulse of our activities and seeing how we measure up. No document can provide the answer to every difficult question. Rather, our code of ethics is intended as a guide to moral decision-making and ethical policy formation. Its aim is to offer guidance as we work to find solutions to difficult issues and moral dilemmas. Our hope is that this code will also stimulate conversation and debate, and contribute to an organizational climate that encourages meaningful and thoughtful inquiry about complex ethical issues. The CPS Code of Ethics is available online at . Funding for the development of the Canadian Paediatric Society Code of Ethics was provided by a grant from the McConnell Family Foundation, as part of the McGill-McConnell Program for National Voluntary Sector Leaders. Development of the Code of Ethics was led by the following advisory committee members: Ms Marie Adèle Davis, Ms Jill Greenwell, Dr Bob Issenman, Ms Melanie Laffin, Dr Denis Leduc, Dr Doug McMillan, Mr Paul Muirhead and Dr Diane Sacks.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,022
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,823
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,954

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0220,044
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0260,036
Communication savante0,0130,004
Science ouverte0,0030,010
Intégrité de la recherche0,0080,013
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0110,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,053
Tête enseignante GPT0,388
Écart entre enseignants0,335 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2004
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePaediatrics & Child HealthMême sujetChild and Adolescent HealthTravaux en français237 207