MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988561707 · doi:10.1177/0840470414562663

Ethically justified decisions

2015· review· en· W1988561707 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bashir Jiwani

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsFraser Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careQuality (philosophy)Decision analysisManagement scienceBusinessKnowledge managementPsychologyPublic relationsComputer sciencePolitical scienceEconomicsLawEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Good Decisions is a framework that assists healthcare leaders to make ethically justified system-level decisions. This article describes some of the features that make a decision ethically justified and discusses the experience of its use in one Canadian health authority. The framework sees the membership and relationships of the decision team, the quality of analysis, the breadth of consultation, and the implementation of and follow up on decisions, as all impacting a decision's ethical justification.

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)0.094
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.161
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0940.161
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.036
Scholarly communication0.0120.014
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0140.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.433
GPT teacher head0.617
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207