Bibliographic record
Abstract
The principles espoused in the Hippocratic Oath and passed down through generations of physicians over the millennia remain the core for the ethical behaviour of physicians today ( ). These traditional values have been expanded and clarified in the current day to cover the fundamental principles of medicine for physicians; especially, compassion, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and respect for persons and justice (Canadian Medical Association's Code of Ethics ). Codes are not exhaustive and, by their nature, need to be interpreted in context. In this issue of Paediatrics & Child Health, articles address contemporary ethical issues around compassion and justice, such as obstacles to drugs access for children with inflammatory bowel disease discussed by Otley et al (pages 87–88), and issues of respect for persons and confidentiality concerns in regards to the reporting of clinical cases discussed by Shevell (pages 83–84). The article by Muirhead (pages 85–86) highlights ethical issues that arise when parents and physicians disagree on management. Each of these articles deals with our ethical practice as a physician. In contrast, Moreau (pages 81–82) reports on the development of the Code of Ethics for the Canadian Paediatric Society. This is not a code that outlines the principles for our behaviour as individual physicians caring for children and youth. This code moves us further along the ethical pathway by providing the ethical principles the Canadian Paediatric Society should use in making decisions, including those that involve policy.
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 | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".