MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2736233486 · doi:10.1097/jfn.0000000000000159

Mandatory Reporting of Intimate Partner Violence: An Ethical Dilemma for Forensic Nurses

2017· article· en· W2736233486 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Nursing · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForensic nursingConfidentialityDomestic violenceMandateLaw enforcementMedical emergencyMedicineAutonomyMandatory reportingPoison controlSuicide preventionNursingPsychologyCriminologyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nearly all states and provinces have laws mandating licensed healthcare professionals to report to law enforcement suspicions and allegations of the abuse of children, older adults, and disabled persons and all incidents of violence by a deadly weapon. However, a few states in the United States additionally mandate providers to report all injuries resultant from reported or suspected domestic/intimate partner violence. This can present a challenge to forensic nurses seeking to protect patient confidentiality and autonomy. This challenge becomes further compounded when a patient desiring to remain anonymous reports sexual assault by their partner, accompanied by bodily injury. This case report explores one such scenario that occurred in a rural Colorado Emergency Department, the issues this presents to forensic nurses, and possible responses.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.359 · 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