Confidentiality and treatment decisions of minor clients: a health professional’s dilemma & policy makers challenge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Issues relating to confidentiality and consent for physical and mental health treatment with minor clients can pose challenges health care providers. Decisions need to be made regarding these issues despite the absence of clear, direct, or comprehensive policies and legislation. In order to fully understand the scope of this topic, a systemic review of several pieces of legislation and guidelines related to this topic are examined. These include the: Canadian Human Rights Act, Children's Rights: International and National Laws and Practices, Health Information Act, Gillick Competence and Medical Emancipation, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act, Common Law Mature Minor Doctrine, and Alberta Health Services Consent to Treatment/Practice(s) Minor/Mature Minor. In order to assist health professionals with decisions regarding confidentiality and treatment with minor clients a case study and guide for decision-making is also presented.
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 | 0.050 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".