MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116985665 · doi:10.1353/cja.2005.0077

Competence, Capacity, and Informed Consent: Beyond the Cognitive-Competence Model

2005· article· en· W2116985665 on OpenAlexaffabout
Eike‐Henner W. Kluge

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)CognitionInformed consentStatutePsychologyHealth careSocial psychologyMedicinePolitical scienceLawAlternative medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Only competent persons can give informed consent to health care. Current approaches define competence in essentially cognitive terms, thereby ignoring the fact that someone may be cognitively competent yet lack the capacity to give a valid consent. I outline a more robust theory of competence that includes not only cognitive but also emotional and valuational parameters. I then distinguish competence from capacity, and indicate the role this distinction can usefully play in the extended and continuing care setting. I also show how this distinction is consistent with several recent Canadian legal decisions, and outline its usefulness in interpreting and applying relevant provincial statutes.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.062
Scholarly communication0.0080.010
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations31
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207