MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052556861 · doi:10.1136/pgmj.2005.037754

Dismembering the ethical physician

2006· review· en· W2052556861 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen J. Genuis

Bibliographic record

VenuePostgraduate Medical Journal · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConscienceAction (physics)Engineering ethicsPsychological interventionPatient advocacyEthical issuesNursingMEDLINELawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physicians may experience ethical distress when they are caught in difficult clinical situations that demand ethical decision making, particularly when their preferred action may contravene the expectations of patients and established authorities. When principled and competent doctors succumb to patient wishes or establishment guidelines and participate in actions they perceive to be ethically inappropriate, or agree to refrain from interventions they believe to be in the best interests of patients, individual professional integrity may be diminished, and ethical reliability is potentially compromised. In a climate of ever-proliferating ethical quandaries, it is essential for the medical community, health institutions, and governing bodies to pursue a judicious tension between the indispensable regulation of physicians necessary to maintain professional standards and preserve public safety, and the support for "freedom of conscience" that principled physicians require to practise medicine in keeping with their personal ethical orientation.

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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
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, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0050.135
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.219
GPT teacher head0.577
Teacher spread0.357 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePostgraduate Medical JournalSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207