Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The first experimental lobotomy was performed in psychiatric patients at 1930. At the beginning, the purpose of such experiments was the treatment of certain patients such as psychotics, sexual offenders and schizophernics, but during the years, the unpredictable results and harms appeared. Nowadays the treatment is limited to medical treatment and psychosurgery which includes two new forms of lobotomy named cingulotomy and capsulotomy. Previously physicians were performing dangerous surgery on a wide rage of patients irrespective of their consent and objections. In fact they treated them in the favor of patients' and public (social) interests and some claims have risen against it. In this regard some legislators such as Canadian legislator enacted or amended their regulations and these regulations criticized. Method: We selected the most related articles and books among the related resources. For completing this article, we searched by the keywords of Lobotomy, enforced offender to treatment, ethics. Results & Conclusion: Studying some known cases demonstrated harmful effects of this special surgery and regarding to the ethical and legal points of view, operating patients only for the interest of patients or public, irrespective of their consent is not legitimate.
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 | 0.010 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".