MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1932082864 · doi:10.17169/fqs-6.2.472

Serving Youth with Physical Deformity in Canadian Schools: Ethical Guidelines for Non-Discriminatory Practice

2008· article· en· W1932082864 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kristine Edgington, Jillian Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenueForum: Qualitative Social Research (Freie Universität Berlin) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesGynecologyPolitical sciencePhilosophyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physical deformity has a number of serious affects on an individuals psychological and social functioning. In order to help psychologists and other professionals involved in the education of youth with physical deformity, we have interpreted the Canadian Psychological Association's (CPA) Guideline's for Non-Discriminatory Practice in this context. The general principles of the Guidelines for Non-Discriminatory Practice are consistent with those of the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (CPA, 2001) and include: I. Respect for the Dignity of Persons, II. Responsible Caring, III. Integrity in Relationships, and IV. Responsibility to Society. In addition, several examples of ethical dilemmas that may arise through involvement with students with physical deformity are presented and discussed. URN: urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0502442

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.127
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.174
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.673

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1270.174
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0300.026
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0080.008
Research integrity0.0150.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.540
GPT teacher head0.646
Teacher spread0.106 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForum: Qualitative Social Research (Freie Universität Berlin)Same topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207