MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Patient autonomy versus parentalism

2001· article· en· W2012429571 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCritically illMultidisciplinary approachAutonomyIntensive care unitAdaptation (eye)Interpretation (philosophy)Intensive care medicineIntensive careMEDLINENursingPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several decision-making models have been advanced to characterize the patient-physician relationship. These include the parental model, the informed decision-making model, the interpretive model, and the deliberative model. Although these models are useful to consider in reflecting on the care we give to critically ill patients at the end of life, they require adaptation to the intensive care unit (ICU). Many clinicians adapt their approach to each individual patient and change their approach to the same patient over time. Moreover, instead of the dyadic model of one patient and one physician, multiple voices often speak for the patient and a team of clinicians care for the ICU patient. Analysis of human relationships and communication with critically ill patients and their families require transdisciplinary, multicultural, and multidisciplinary interpretation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations59
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207