MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129637765 · doi:10.7202/1035492ar

What’s Unethical About Interprofessional Collaboration?

2016· article· en· W2129637765 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Lise Lévesque

Bibliographic record

VenueBioéthiqueOnline · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsAxdev Group (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomyDialog boxValue (mathematics)Relation (database)Public relationsPsychologyHealth carePolitical scienceMedicineLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this commentary, the beneficial value of the relational aspects of interprofessional collaboration is emphasized to demonstrate that conflict of interests arising in self-referrals are more complex than presented in classic cases of conflicts of interest. A dialog involving health professionals and ethicists is recommended to better understand the relational aspects that are essential to patient wellness and autonomy, in relation to the various care and organizational contexts across private and public sectors. The goal is to inform policy making on management of conflicts of interests associated with self-referrals.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.435 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioéthiqueOnlineSame topicInterprofessional Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207