Ética em psiquiatria forense: atividades pericial e clínica e pesquisa com prisioneiros
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Review the most relevant ethical issues of the tripartite aspects on which forensic psychiatry is based: expert activity, treatment of the mentally ill in prisons, and research on prisoner subjects. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The principles of General Medical Ethics and those of Forensic Medical Ethics are discriminated and confronted and the steps the psychiatrist should take both as an expert and as a clinician to follow the ethical principles of his profession are indicated. A succinct résumé of the research on prisoners is offered and the basic principles, which, if respected, would keep a balance between the need for carrying out research in prisonal environments and the safeguard of prisoners' rights are suggested. CONCLUSION: It is fundamental for the forensic psychiatrist the knowledge and implementation of the ethical principles that govern his practice so that he will effectively respect the basic rights of the individuals he treats or researches with.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it