The Informed Consent/Assent from the Doctrine of the Mature Minor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is necessary to recognize the child as an active moral subject in making decision process related to his health or his participation in research. The taking of informed consent as a communication process should tend to respect the autonomy and dignity of the child considered mature or not, taking their decisions seriously and not just an assent as a normative principle of mere legal aspect. It describes theoretical elements that can be used as tools to have an approach to the moral development of the child from the principle of responsibility according to the degree of emancipation. The objective is to provide a description of the most relevant aspects about the informed consent process in the mature child and their right to be informed to agree or consent. We searched the databases such as: PROQUEST, MEDLINE, LILACS and PUBMED, analyzing 51 articles. For the organization of the information, the SLIDING methodology was used: sort, label, integrate and prioritize. It was concluded that the ability to assent of the child considered mature or not should be evaluated under objective parameters and not simply under the perception of the doctor or researcher. Finally, it is necessary to design strategies to promote the autonomy, respect and dignity of the child based on the same practices at the time of informed consent.
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 | 0.090 | 0.142 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".