MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154161933 · doi:10.7196/sajbl.55

The future of medical professionalism

2009· article· en· W2154161933 on OpenAlexaff
John R. Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueSouth African Journal of Bioethics and Law · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommercialismConsumerismOrder (exchange)Public relationsMedical professionPolitical scienceEngineering ethicsSociologyBusinessEnvironmental ethicsPsychologyLawMedicineEngineeringMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical professionalism is under threat today and its future is quite uncertain. In order to influence the future rather than let it be determined by external forces, physicians and their associations need to understand its past and its present status, including the challenges posed by commercialism,  consumerism, bureaucratisation and unprofessional behaviour. Two future scenarios are presented, one unfavourable and the other favourable to professionalism. Unless the profession acts quickly and decisively, it is likely that the unfavourable scenario will prevail. Suggestions are offered for how a favourable future can be achieved.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.730

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.316 · 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.

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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSouth African Journal of Bioethics and LawSame topicHealth and Medical Research ImpactsFrench-language works237,207