PEUT-ON CONCILIER RÉALITÉ ET ENJEUX ÉTHIQUES, JURIDIQUES ET SCIENTIFIQUES DANS LE PROCESSUS D’ÉVALUATION MÉDICALE DE L’INAPTITUDE DES PERSONNES ÂGÉES?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As Canadian society ages, physicians are often called upon to assess the capacity of elderly patients. This kind of medical assessment has ethical, social and legal dimensions that may be outside the physician’s area of expertise. The multidisciplinary nature of this process puts physicians in a difficult position as their decisions have profound consequences for patients. These considerations raise a recurrent question in health care—how can we reconcile these different disciplines for a more comprehensive assessment of a patient’s capacity? This type of multifaceted assessment requires knowledge of the complex legal notions of capacity, autonomy and self-determination. Moreover, understanding the ethical and social issues surrounding a protection regime can lead us to the solution recommended by this article—an interdisciplinary virtual system that would allow professionals from each discipline to collaborate on a medically, legally, socially and ethically appropriate decision-making process.
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 | 0.048 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".