MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Substitute Consent in Women with Psychosis

2014· review· en· W2314060287 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

VenueJournal of Psychiatric Practice · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHomicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosisPsychiatryInformed consentMEDLINEPsychologyMedicineAlternative medicinePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When treating patients with schizophrenia, substitute consent for treatment is often needed because of the patient's decisional incapacity. The goal of this article is to illustrate the potential problems involved in surrogate decision-making in a mental health service for women. A composite case vignette that highlights these issues is presented. The vignette was developed based on files from a women's clinic for psychosis and a selective literature review. The quality of the relationship between marriage partners and the possibility of pregnancy, motherhood, and child custody disputes all complicate the ethics of next- of-kin surrogate decision-making. The concept of "best interests" (the mother's or the child's) is not straightforward. A related ethical issue is whether/when to disclose psychiatric information to spouses. It is hoped that this paper will engender further discussion in medicine, cultural studies, ethics, and the law.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.354 · 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