Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent technological advances allow for instantaneous high quality video and audio recordings with the touch of a button. In Canada, patient privacy is highly regulated by provincial legislation, although patients themselves have little in the way of laws or regulations to observe. Patients taking video recordings of their own medical care does not currently fall under any of the provincial privacy laws. With no such governance for the general public, patients generally have greater freedom to record a patient-physician interaction. Unfortunately, there are no official policies from the provincial physician colleges regarding how best to proceed in these circumstances. Therefore, the onus is on individual hospitals and emergency departments (EDs) to develop their own policy on video recordings. A policy should ideally cover possible recording devices, locations, staff involved, and mandate that a written consent form be included with the patient's chart. While every request should be considered individually, physicians should generally not feel compelled to agree to the patient recording the clinical encounter. Patients are legally allowed to record a patient-physician interaction without consent of their physician, because the patient can provide the "one-party consent" for the conversation to be recorded. Physicians should accept the possibility that they are being recorded at all times and should strive to communicate as clearly and effectively as possible. Physicians should strive to provide the same level of care that they would even if they were not being recorded, and not let it interfere with their clinical decision-making.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.011 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".