Practitioner sex abuse: occurrence, prevention and disciplinary sanction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies put forward figures for male practitioner sex abuse of around ten per cent. This practice, which is contrary to medical ethics, is highly reprehensible in ethical terms. The assaults range from uninvited meddling in patients' sexual lives to proven rape and inappropriate touching. The majority of this type of abuse is perpetrated by psychiatrists, but in more recent times a growing number of cases have been uncovered involving general practitioners or obstetric gynaecologists. For the most part, the abusers are men, aged between 45 and 64, who are insufficiently trained in terms of the 'practitioner-patient' relationship, or who are suffering from a mental pathology or who are in a situation of personal or professional crisis. Raising awareness of this issue is the driving force behind the implementation of prevention strategies, based on initial and ongoing training for practitioners in France, whistle-blowing on fellow practitioners in the United States and professional help in Canada. Disciplinary sanctions are more severe than those given within the framework of non-sexual misconduct in the United States. In France, the Order of Practitioners does not appear to be taking its role of defending patients seriously, since it seldom issues anything more substantial than minor penalties.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".