MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2266895322

Capacity, Vulnerability, Risk and Consent: Personhood in the Law

2010· article· en· W2266895322 on OpenAlexaff
Margaret Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonhoodDoctrineNeglectEquity (law)Vulnerability (computing)Context (archaeology)Mental capacityLaw and economicsPolitical scienceBusinessSociologyLawPsychologyComputer sciencePsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Policy makers are increasingly concerned with the needs of the vulnerable but capable at risk of both self-neglect and exploitation by others. The law has long intervened in decision making where the decision maker is found to lack mental capacity. The principles of equity will apply to retrospectively evaluate decisions of the capable but vulnerable in the context of particular relationships- a person-centred approach embedded in legal doctrine. This article explores the relationship between the equitable theory and the theory of personhood, and explores the possibilities for expanding the equitable framework beyond its current, fairly narrow, application.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
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 integrity0.0000.007
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.319 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207