The Relationship Between Doctors, Patients and the Law in North American and British Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In common law jurisdictions today, the relationship between doctors and patients is generally considered to be a private one (Dorr Goold and Lipkin Jr., 1999). Like most professions, doctors are governed to a large extent by professional associations with their own Codes of Ethics. To practice medicine in the United States, Canada, or Britain, doctors must be licensed by their local Board or College1. Government control of doctor-patient relationships is generally limited to funding, but in a few areas, in particular, those that are considered to be matters of public morality or ethics, criminal statutes can apply. Historically, reproductive rights have often fallen under state control. This paper will compare fictional representations of state interference with reproductive rights in three science-fiction dystopias, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale (Atwood, 1985), P.D. James’s Children of Men (James, 1992), and Harlan Ellison’s “A Boy and His Dog” (Ellison, 1969), and examine the real-world situations and concerns that these stories comment upon.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 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".