MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965014695 · doi:10.1093/innovait/inn189

Ethics in Primary Care: Theory and Practice

2009· article· en· W1965014695 on OpenAlexaff
John Gillies

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovAiT Education and inspiration for general practice · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSelkirk College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioethicsRelevance (law)Medical ethicsEngineering ethicsPrimary careMedical prescriptionNormative ethicsNursing ethicsSociologyEnvironmental ethicsMedicinePolitical scienceLawNursingFamily medicinePhilosophyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“Writing prescriptions is easy, but otherwise coming to an understanding with people is hard.” Kafka, K. In: ‘A country doctor’ (translated Bamforth, 1999 ). The study of medical ethics has been a part of medicine since ancient times. Ethics is a term for various ways of understanding, examining and deciding what is a good moral life. Medical ethics (or bioethics in North America and other countries) is the study of ethics applied to medicine. This article will describe ethical principles, approaches and theories, how they may be used in the assessment process of nMRCGP and their relevance to the world of decision making in primary care.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.416 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovAiT Education and inspiration for general practiceSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207