MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019635238 · doi:10.1080/15265161.2013.781714

Nudging Without Ethical Fudging: Clarifying Physician Obligations to Avoid Ethical Compromise

2013· letter· en· W2019635238 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Emily Bell, Veljko Dubljević, Éric Racine

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Bioethics · 2013
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsMontreal Clinical Research Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCompromiseEthical issuesClinical EthicsPsychologyBioethicsResearch ethicsPolitical scienceSociologyEngineering ethicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Acknowledgments Support for the writing of this commentary comes from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (ER and EB) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (ER and VD). We thank Allison Yan for editorial support and comments on the commentary.

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)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0070.332
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.349 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of BioethicsSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207