Bibliographic record
Abstract
It will not be long before the Singapore Court of Appeal will have to confront the question it left open in Gunapathy and decide whether it should extend the Bolam principle to negligent advice cases as the House of Lords has done, or whether it should follow the more rigorous standard applied in other jurisdictions such as Canada and Australia. Rather than focus on the narrow and intractable debate about the philosophical values underlying both approaches (patient autonomy versus medical paternalism), this article draws on current behavioural and psychological studies to examine which approach would truly assist a patient in arriving at a rational and informed choice. It is argued that neither model currently employed is satisfactory because they fail to take into account the fact that the patient, as a layperson, and the physician, as an expert, perceive risk differently. Accordingly, it is proposed that the doctrine of informed consent should be structured to emphasize the constitutive nature of risk communication in order to bridge this difference.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.145 | 0.201 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.030 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".