MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2781060968 · doi:10.1177/0081246317747148

‘Mental capacity’, ‘sufficient maturity’, and ‘capable of understanding’ in relation to children: how should health professionals interpret these terms?

2017· article· en· W2781060968 on OpenAlexaff
Basil J. Pillay, Jerome Amir Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueSouth African Journal of Psychology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institutes of HealthBill and Melinda Gates FoundationU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsMaturity (psychological)Mental healthRelation (database)Health professionalsPsychologyHealth careNursingPsychiatryMedicinePolitical scienceDevelopmental psychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

South Africa’s Children’s Act 38 of 2005 requires health professionals to determine whether a child possesses ‘sufficient maturity’ and ‘mental capacity’ to make decisions about themselves in relation to surgery, treatment, and HIV testing. Similarly, the National Health Act 61 of 2003 requires a child to be ‘capable of understanding’ to provide informed consent in research. However, neither the Children’s Act nor the National Health Act defines these terms. Moreover, there is no common definition of ‘sufficient maturity’ among healthcare professionals in South Africa. Appreciating how foreign law interprets ‘mental capacity’ and how different healthcare professionals evaluate ‘maturity’ could prove illuminative in respect to how these terms could be interpreted by health professionals in South Africa, and elsewhere.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.072
Scholarly communication0.0090.014
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0080.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSouth African Journal of PsychologySame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207