MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102449297 · doi:10.1177/0894318403260548

Exploring Ethical Implications for Acting Faithfully in Professional Relationships

2004· review· en· W2102449297 on OpenAlexaff
F. Beryl Pilkington

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Science Quarterly · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDutyObligationContext (archaeology)Engineering ethicsRelation (database)PsychologyPersonal IntegritySociologyNursingMedicineSocial psychologyLawPolitical scienceComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The obligation to act faithfully poses ethical issues as nurses live nursing from day to day. In this column, the ethics of acting faithfully is explored in relation to four scenarios drawn from different realms of professional nursing. The scenarios illustrate ethical issues that may arise when attempting to uphold personal integrity and fulfill one's duty to act faithfully. The theoretical context of this discussion is the human becoming school of thought.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.630
GPT teacher head0.621
Teacher spread0.008 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing Science QuarterlySame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207