MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038395839 · doi:10.1037/h0086920

The codes of ethics of the Canadian Psychological Association and the Canadian Medical Association: Ethical orientation and functional grammar analysis.

2002· article· en· W2038395839 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Cruise Malloy, Thomas Hadjistavropoulos, Patrick C. Douaud, William E. Smythe

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssociation (psychology)PsychologyEthical codeGrammarOrientation (vector space)Social psychologyLinguisticsPsychotherapistLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (Canadian Psychological Association, CPA, 2000) has been the subject of several recent investigations. This work has focused, for example, on the validity of its hierarchical organization of ethical principles. In the present research, we subjected the code to both a content and a functional grammar analysis. Our content analysis was aimed at determining the theoretical ethical orientation (i.e., deontological, teleological or caring) of each statement in the document, while the functional grammar analysis provided information about implicit messages embedded within the code. We contrasted the results of our analysis with those of previous work on the code of ethics adopted by the Canadian Medical Association (CMA). We concluded that, compared to CMA's code, the CPA document has greater educational value, is less authoritarian, provides a clear rationale for ethical behaviour, and is more empowering to the decision-maker. We argue that the results of our functional grammar and content analyses have implications for future attempts to improve ethics codes for psychology and other professions. Many organizations and most national professional associations have adopted codes of ethics. Such documents serve an educational function (e.g., O'Neill, 1998) and communicate important expectations to the membership of these organizations. Codes also serve to facilitate a profession's ability to self-regulate. They may also function as a means by which members can question their own personal values as they relate to their professional role (Meyer, 1987). Externally, codes of ethics assure the public, clients, and other stakeholders that members of a profession are competent, have a high level of integrity, and are able to enforce high moral standards (Pettifor, 1996). Codes of ethics also help professionals commit publicly and explicitly to their association's values, norms, beliefs, and philosophy and make them accountable (Dunbar, 1998; Pettifor, 1996). The Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (Canadian Psychological Association, 1986, 2000) was designed to incorporate the collective wisdom of Canadian psychologists (Sinclair, Poisner, GilmourBarrett, & Randall, 1987). Sinclair et al. (1987) described the methodology that was used in the code's development. Briefly, the process involved the creation of 37 vignettes describing hypothetical ethical dilemmas. The dilemmas related to the ethical principles that were articulated in the 1977 edition of the code adopted by the American Psychological Association (APA, 1977). They also involved conflicts between ethical principles as well as psychological practice issues and situations involving innovative but untested approaches. Sinclair et al. formulated questions to elicit self-accepted ethical principles. They asked 400 Canadian psychologists to each respond to a series of questions about a portion of the vignettes. One hundred and twenty-five agreed to participate but only 59 responses were received. The researchers submitted these responses to a content analysis that focused on the reasons provided for the courses of action selected by the respondents. They organized the relevant statements into categories that reflected superordinate ethical principles. The resulting document consisted of four fundamental ethical principles (Respect for the Dignity of Persons, Responsible Caring, Integrity in Relationships, and Responsibility to Society). A consultative process with provincial regulatory bodies supported the validity of the document. Although the code has since undergone revisions, it still is based largely on the original document and its four fundamental ethical principles (CPA, 2000). The CPA (1986, 2000) code has received plenty of praise for its coherence, organization, and unique features (e.g., Booth, 1998; Dixon, 1998; Hadjistavropoulos & Malloy, 2000; Sinclair, 1998; Wassenaar, 1998); however, empirical research (e. …

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)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.106
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.106
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0060.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations22
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienneSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207