MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063150251 · doi:10.1080/15265161.2011.634951

Balancing Autonomy and Decisional Enhancement: An Evidence-Based Approach

2012· letter· en· W2063150251 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Noah Castelo, Peter B. Reiner, Gidon Felsen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Bioethics · 2012
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAutonomyBioethicsPsychologyEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"Balancing Autonomy and Decisional Enhancement: An Evidence-Based Approach." The American Journal of Bioethics, 12(2), pp. 30–31 Acknowledgments Supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

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)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.049
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.255
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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