Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health care providers who treat adolescents may also be required to diagnose and treat the reproductive health conditions of minor patients and to facilitate health prevention measures, including contraception and testing for sexually transmitted diseases. Teens who do not want their parents to know about their sexual behaviour may consult a health care provider for reproductive or sexual health care services and treatment without parental knowledge or consent. This may present legal and ethical dilemmas for health care providers. Common law recognizes that adolescents under the legal age of majority who are sufficiently mature (the mature minor) may have the capacity to consent to health care services with the same independence as adults. Such capacity to consent needs to be determined on an individual basis. Where there is disagreement between a mature minor and her parent(s) about a medical procedure or treatment, the wishes of the adolescent should prevail. Under law, a married minor is usually treated as having attained majority status, however, fertility services cannot ethically be denied if the unmarried adolescent is found capable and they are required medical services for that individual. Parents or legal guardians generally have the legal authority and responsibility to act as surrogate decision makers for adolescents found incapable of making their own health care decisions. Although confidentiality is essential, there are some exceptions to absolute confidentiality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".