MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2393703498

Medical expert opinion and judge's discretion in medical lawsuits:which will be decisive?

2007· article· en· W2393703498 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zhao Xi-j

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of law and medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscretionExpert opinionTest (biology)LawMedical practiceJudicial opinionPolitical scienceField (mathematics)PsychologyMedicineMedical education
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the field of medical lawsuits,medical expert testimony or common practice is strong evidence,but not a conclusive one. The famous Bolam case seems to deem common practice in medical profession as conclusive one. The Bolam test is not only applied in treatment cases but also is extended to diagnosis and informed consent cases. But this test is not recognized in Australia and Canada. In Bolitho case,the judicial opinion in UK changed,making it more similar to that of Australia and Canada. In this case the judge specifically emphasized that the medical opinion should have a logical basis,reasonable and respectable. The judge can learn to utilize risk-benefits analysis to make their own decision in particular cases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.212
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.212
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.025
Scholarly communication0.0130.018
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0290.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.430 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of law and medicineSame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207