Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to explore ethical issues in the provision of transitional care. Using five case studies a number of ethical issues in transition and transition care are discussed. These issues include: 1) preserving, promoting and ensuring dignity and respect for patients; 2) fostering and supporting the trusting relationships that young people and their parents have for pediatric providers to their new adult providers by using a graduated system of transfer; 3) recognizing graduated capacity; 4) promoting autonomy and self-management; 5) duties of beneficence and non-maleficence; 6) truthtelling; 7) duty to provide developmentally appropriate care; and 8) duty of pediatric providers to advocate for transitioning patients in the adult system. Attention to the ethical issues surrounding these complex cases has the potential to positively influence a successful transition to adult-oriented health care.
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 | 0.060 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| 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".