MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1938188937 · doi:10.18060/16430

Ethics Do Matter, But Where?

2014· article· en· W1938188937 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Social Work · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial workMental healthEngineering ethicsEconomic JusticeSociologyProfessional conductPsychologyNursing ethicsProfessional ethicsPublic relationsMedical educationNursingMedicinePsychotherapistPolitical sciencePsychiatryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The implications of social work being an ethics-based profession are explored. Conduct toward colleagues in the discharge of ethical practices is a focus of this article. The author’s view is that other disciplines involved in mental health, for example, psychiatry, family physicians, psychology, nursing, pastoral services, education, and rehabilitation therapy, share these values. As such, these themes are relevant across many professional disciplines. The article’s intent is to promote discussion as to how we cultivate a collective demeanor as social workers that is congruent with our most hallowed values and principles, namely, social justice, ethical practice, fairness and respect for all people. An examination of daily practices in the workplace and suggested remedies to enhance ethical conduct, including a series of questions we can ask ourselves, are offered.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.449 · 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