Bibliographic record
Abstract
Education and debate p 97 In this issue, Coldicott et al report an exploratory survey that shows, among other findings, that up to a quarter of intimate examinations in anaesthetised or sedated patients seem not to have had adequate consent from patients (p 97).1 This paper will generate a firestorm of controversy, wide media interest, and perhaps even calls for a public inquiry. Through the controversy, let us keep one point uppermost in mind: identifying the problem is only half the battle—the other half is coming up with an effective solution. The fact that this report has been published at all represents a triumph of academic freedom. In particular, Coldicott, a medical student, deserves high praise for seeing this controversial study through to publication. The medical school examined in the study is probably not the only medical school in the world with similar practices, and the …
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 | 0.018 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.090 | 0.062 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".