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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Forensic psychiatrists find themselves at the crossroads of disparate ethical demands stemming from their basic identification as physicians versus obligations of their professional activities that often involve working for third parties and upholding the principles of law. Ethical demands in law may collide with those of the ethics of medicine. RECENT FINDINGS: This review focuses on theoretical articles in which the two ethical paradigms impacting the forensic practice are discussed. In addition, this review includes some articles that bring new insights into old problems such as coercion and articles dealing with an emerging controversy, the use of medical information or medical personnel in interrogations. SUMMARY: The controversy on the two paradigms under which forensic psychiatrists operate has not been exhausted; no definite position has been advanced about the virtues of one over the other or how best to reconcile the two. Old issues such as coercion remain topics of concern and new areas of debate such as intelligence interrogations, which eventually will have an impact on forensic psychiatry, are now starting to permeate the ethical discourse.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it