Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the doctrine of informed consent and the development of capacity in adolescents with psychiatric problems to help clinicians better reflect on the relevant ethical issues. METHOD: We discuss the relevant literature and explore the role of psychiatric impairment in adolescents' ability to consent. RESULTS: In common law, there is no minimum age at which individuals are able to consent to medical treatment and no age below which they are unable to consent. Adolescents' right to self-determination is based on their ability to understand and appreciate the information relevant to the medical decision and on their ability to consent voluntarily and freely. There is a consensus in the literature that, around age 14 years, adolescents have the cognitive ability to understand information necessary for consent. However, there are limited empirical data regarding adolescents' ability to appreciate the information and to make a voluntary decision. CONCLUSION: Clinicians need to involve adolescents in the consent process to the extent possible and assess the elements of capacity to consent to treatment on an individual case basis, recognizing that capacity may evolve as adolescents' cognitive capacities and values mature.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".