MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165699858 · doi:10.1186/1472-6939-2-1

Clinical ethics revisited

2001· article· en· W2165699858 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Singer, Edmund D. Pellegrino, Mark Siegler

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Ethics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsDe VeberUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophy of medicineEngineering ethicsClinical EthicsInformation ethicsApplied ethicsNursing ethicsResearch ethicsPerspective (graphical)Medical ethicsField (mathematics)Military medical ethicsMeta-ethicsMedicinePolitical scienceAlternative medicineLawEngineeringPathologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A decade ago, we reviewed the field of clinical ethics; assessed its progress in research, education, and ethics committees and consultation; and made predictions about the future of the field. In this article, we revisit clinical ethics to examine our earlier observations, highlight key developments, and discuss remaining challenges for clinical ethics, including the need to develop a global perspective on clinical ethics problems.

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0120.058
Scholarly communication0.0140.015
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0250.042
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.498
GPT teacher head0.658
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations154
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical EthicsSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207