MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610601066

Consent Requirements for Pelvic Examinations Performed for Training Purposes

2012· article· en· W2610601066 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jocelyn Downie, Elaine Gibson

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge@SchulichLaw · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineStatement (logic)Obstetrics and gynaecologyPelvic examinationInformed consentMedical educationGynecologyFamily medicineAlternative medicinePregnancyLawPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2010, The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) and The Association of Professors of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of Canada (APOG) released an updated policy statement regarding pelvic examinations performed on women under anesthesia. The updated statement, unlike the previous 2006 guideline that applied to “medical trainees” (explicitly including students and residents), for the most part only applies to “medical students”. Pelvic examinations conducted for training purposes presumably constitute a battery in law, subject to the defence of consent. Residents need to be covered by an SOGC and APOG policy statement regarding pelvic examinations for training purposes with the same requirements that the updated statement establishes for medical students.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.664
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.642
GPT teacher head0.561
Teacher spread0.082 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnowledge@SchulichLawSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207