MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2776473093 · doi:10.12789/geocanj.2017.44.127

Innovation in Establishing the Standard of Care in a Self-Regulated Profession

2017· article· en· W2776473093 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Lindsay Steele

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoscience Canada · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsGeoscience BC
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiligencePolitical scienceDutyDue diligencePublic administrationPublic relationsManagementLawPsychologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under Law, professional geoscientists have a duty of care that they must adhere to when they carry out their activities. The question is, when a duty of care exists, what is the standard of care that is owed? Geoscience regulators in Canada and around the world are working with geoscientists to develop innovative solutions in establishing the standard of care that must be met. By clearly establishing what our expectations are concerning standard of care, we are setting common ideals and goals as a professional community. Both society, geoscientists and employers of geoscientists look to regulatory associations for guidance on professional practice, therefore regulators need to strive to support and educate their members by developing tools and resources that allow members to meet the standard of care expected of them. The paper describes innovative approaches being offered to assist members of Engineers and Geoscientists British Columbia and is based on an oral presentation given by the author at the International Geology Congress in Cape Town South Africa in August 2016.RÉSUMÉEn vertu de la loi, les géoscientifiques professionnels ont un devoir de diligence auquel ils doivent se conformer dans l'exercice de leurs activités. La question qui se pose est la suivante : lorsqu'il existe un devoir de diligence, quelle est la norme de diligence à respecter? Les organismes de réglementation géoscientifiques au Canada, et ailleurs dans le monde, travaillent de concert avec les géoscientifiques à l'élaboration de solutions novatrices pour établir la norme de diligence à respecter. En établissant clairement nos attentes concernant les normes de diligence, nous établissons des idéaux et des objectifs communs en tant que regroupement professionnel. La société, les géoscientifiques et leurs employeurs attendent des associations de réglementation des conseils sur les usages professionnels. Les organismes de réglementation doivent donc s'efforcer de soutenir et former leurs membres en dotant des outils et des ressources qui leur permettent de respecter les normes d'usage en vigueur. L’article qui suit, et qui décrit les approches novatrices proposées aux membres de la Engineers and Geoscientist British Columbia est basé sur une présentation orale donnée par l'auteur au Congrès international de géologie à Cape Town, en Afrique du Sud, en août 2016.

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)0.106
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.069
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1060.069
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.057
Scholarly communication0.0230.017
Open science0.0050.018
Research integrity0.0110.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.366 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoscience CanadaSame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207