Perception of the Moral Development of the Child With Autoimmune Disease by Clinicians and Researchers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents an analysis about meanings that clinicians and researchers have regarding the autonomy of the mature minor with autoimmune disease, which could lead to different power practices during the moment of taking the informed consent, keeping in mind the doctrine of the minor mature. Consequently, the role of clinicians and researchers in contributing to the moral development or autonomy of the child. The objective was to describe the meanings or perceptions of doctors and researchers, at the time of informed consent, in relation to the autonomy or moral development of the child with autoimmune disease, arising from their experiences, knowledge and prior conceptions of the child. The methodology used was of a qualitative nature with a subjectivist and interpretative approach and a transversal scope. Semi-structured interviews were applied to 21 people, researchers and doctors, who attend children with autoimmune diseases, whose data were analyzed through the Atlas Ti program. 8.0. In conclusion, the informed consent is a process of assertive communication ethical model that seeks the moral structuring of the child beyond what is perceived by the clinician or researcher, in addition the clinicians and researchers consider that to structure the minor is to perceive him as an autonomous subject; which is possible when it shows adherence to treatment and responsible care independently of the tutor's support.
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 | 0.043 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".