MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2941939745 · doi:10.5430/jha.v8n3p18

How to promote justice, greater safety and trust between hospitals and patients

2019· article· en· W2941939745 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Steven E. Pegalis, William P. Dillon, Nicole Reinhardt, J. Manoj Kumar, Daniel Pelo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hospital Administration · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecialtyEconomic JusticePublic trustPatient safetyMedicineNursingPublic relationsPsychologyMedical emergencyFamily medicineHealth carePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a time when lack of trust has been cited as an increasing problem between patients and the organizations and physicians who care for them, what can hospitals and physicians do to deal with this problem that is not already being done? We discuss herein an actual obstetrical based legal case intended to be an illustrative example of medical-legal issues that could apply to any specialty. If hospitals and physicians will overtly promote safety by learning from errors and support justice for injured patients, the conveyance of these ethically motivated policies to the public can be a powerful message that hospitals and physicians are to be trusted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hospital AdministrationSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207