Establishing moral bearings: ethics and expatriate health care professionals in humanitarian work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expatriate health care professionals frequently participate in international responses to natural disasters and humanitarian emergencies. This field of practice presents important clinical, logistical and ethical challenges for clinicians. This paper considers the ethics of health care practice in humanitarian contexts. It examines features that contribute to forming the moral landscape of humanitarian work, and discusses normative guidelines and approaches that are relevant for this work. These tools and frameworks provide important ethics resources for humanitarian settings. Finally, it elaborates a set of questions that can aid health care professionals as they analyse ethical issues that they experience in the field. The proposed process can assist clinicians as they seek to establish their moral bearings in situations of ethical complexity and uncertainty. Identifying and developing ethics resources and vocabulary for clinical practice in humanitarian work will help health care professionals provide ethically sound care to patients and communities.
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 | 0.064 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.098 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".