MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976747725 · doi:10.1080/07370010709336586

The Evolution of Ethics for Community Practice

2007· review· en· W1976747725 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

VenueJournal of Community Health Nursing · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPublic Health Policies and Education
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFoundation (evidence)EmpowermentEngineering ethicsSociologyNursing ethicsEconomic JusticeEnvironmental health ethicsPublic relationsInclusion (mineral)Diversity (politics)Environmental ethicsSocial justiceHealth careCommunity-based participatory researchPolitical scienceSocial scienceParticipatory action researchHealth policyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Defining the community as client or partner requires a different ethical approach, an approach focused on the aggregate, community, or societal level. A discussion of rule ethics, virtue ethics, and feminist ethics transports the community practitioner beyond traditional ethical principles to consider a more contemporary ethical foundation for public health and community practice. Inclusion, diversity, participation, empowerment, social justice, advocacy, and interdependence create an evolving ethical foundation to support community practice. Collaboration among health care professionals and members of the organizations, communities, and societies in which they practice will facilitate the further development of moral thought and ethical theory to underpin community practice.

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)0.117
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1170.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.026
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 head0.590
GPT teacher head0.695
Teacher spread0.105 · 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