Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides a comparative perspective on applied professional ethics. As part of a multi-site research project, findings from a qualitative interview study of Cuban psychologists were compared to findings from a similar study of psychologists and social workers in three Canadian human service settings. The comparison generates insights into the contingent nature of conceptions and applications of ethics: that is, the authors found that different `stories' about the meaning of professional ethics derived from the different historical, political and economic relations of Cuba and North America. Such differences were manifested in the relation of the professional to the political, in collectivist versus individualist orientations to ethics, and in relationships between the personal and the professional. The authors contend that the importance of a comparative approach is that it encourages a reflexive attitude to ethics by unsettling the notion that there are universal prescriptions for ethics. In addition, the comparison opens space for including the dynamics of privilege, marginalization, power and resistance as crucial elements of the social construction of professional ethics.
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 | 0.022 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.046 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".