Values and ethics in practice-based decision making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Values are evident in health ethics literature; however, it is seldom clear how they are visible in practice. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to illuminate how values inform occupational therapists' decision making in practice. METHOD: Fifteen New Zealand community occupational therapists completed this embedded experimental mixed-methods study. A pre-deliberation questionnaire was completed prior to deliberation of a case study using web-based values transparency software, the Values Exchange, followed by a post-deliberation questionnaire. Categorical data were analyzed using non-parametric statistics. Written responses to open questions were thematically analyzed. FINDINGS: Most participants disagreed with the proposed action for the case. Degrees of divergence, concern for dignity and risk, and values-based reasoning were found, revealing how ethical deliberation was values based. IMPLICATIONSs. Recognition and transparency of the values inherent in practice-based decision making is possible and desirable in promoting sound ethical reasoning.
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 | 0.135 | 0.152 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.091 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".