MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2202038458

Informed Consent to Treatment in Psychiatry

2015· article· en· W2202038458 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed Central · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonNova Scotia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformed consentDignityAutonomyPsychiatryPsychologyPatient rightsHealth careMedicineLawAlternative medicinePolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients have a right to be informed and actively involved in their health care. Fundamental to a person’s dignity and autonomy is the right to make decisions about their psychiatric treatment, including their right to refuse unwanted treatments, providing that the refusal is a capable one. It is important that psychiatrists have an awareness of the ethical underpinnings of consent and the legislated requirements related to consent, including precedent cases. Consent may change over time and for different conditions and circumstances. Consent must be an ongoing process.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.191
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.288 · 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