MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143972290 · doi:10.1177/1049732313520081

On Ethical (In)Decisions Experienced by Parents of Infants in Neonatal Intensive Care

2014· article· en· W2143972290 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael van Manen

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsEthical decisionFeelingPsychologySpellIntensive careHealth careThematic analysisQualitative researchNursingSocial psychologyMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was a phenomenological investigation of ethical decisions experienced by parents of newborns in neonatal intensive care. I explore the lived meanings of thematic events that speak to the variable ways that ethical situations may be experienced: a decision that was never a choice; a decision as looking for a way out; a decision as thinking and feeling oneself through the consequences; a decision as indecision; and a decision as something that one falls into. The concluding recommendations spell out the need for understanding the experiences of parents whose children require medical care and underscore the tactful sensitivities required of the health care team during moral-ethical decision making.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.392
GPT teacher head0.651
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations51
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Health ResearchSame topicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207