MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993321499 · doi:10.1080/10398560701308282

Overview of Psychiatric Ethics II: Virtue Ethics and the Ethics of Care

2007· article· en· W1993321499 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Robertson, Garry Walter

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Psychiatry · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsChild, Adolescent and Family Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVirtue ethicsVirtueNormative ethicsNursing ethicsMeta-ethicsEthics of careInformation ethicsApplied ethicsPsychologyEngineering ethicsEpistemologyPsychiatryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to consider the components of two moral theories--the ethics of virtue and the ethics of care--and their relationship to psychiatry. CONCLUSIONS: Although both theories reflect fundamentally desirable human qualities, neither provides a comprehensive account of psychiatric ethics. We are therefore drawn to a similar conclusion as those of Hare (1993) and Bloch and Green (2006), in that these theories offer a complementary approach to other ethical theories in psychiatry.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.120
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.394 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations15
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralasian PsychiatrySame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207