MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163208507 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2008.20091

The Beneficial Role of a Judicial Process When "Everything" Is Too Much?

2008· article· en· W2163208507 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mark Handelman, Bob Parke

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsCanadians Living with HIV
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresentation (obstetrics)MediationHealth careNarrativeBest practicePublic relationsProcess (computing)PsychologyPolitical scienceLawNursingBusinessMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This narrative is written with the intent to encourage physicians as well as other healthcare professionals to use judicial processes, such as those provided by the Ontario Consent and Capacity Board, to help resolve conflict with treatment decisions between care providers and decision-makers. Through the presentation of a fictional yet common case scenario, it is argued that after all attempts at mediation have been attempted that the timely use of a third party is in the patient's, the family's and the healthcare team's best interests.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.043
Scholarly communication0.0140.019
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0180.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207