Religiously discordant, legally consistent, and ethically ambiguous: The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's approach to conscientious objection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le «College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario» (CPSO) a récemment publié une version révisée de la politique Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code, qui établit les lignes directrices professionnelles portant sur l'objection de conscience. Dans la mesure où elle exige une action de la part des médecins, la politique a engendré une controverse à travers les communautés religieuses, légales et bioéthiques canadiennes. Afin de donner un aperçu de ce débat, ma dissertation examine les lignes directrices du CPSO selon les perspectives du Catholicisme Romain, de la loi Canadienne et du cadre éthique principisme. Bien que certaines analyses révèlent des tensions entre la position du CPSO et la doctrine Catholique Romaine sur la conscience et la coopération en mal, il existe une cohérence générale entre la politique et le traitement de la conscience ainsi que de la religion dans la jurisprudence canadienne. Dans l'optique du principisme, la constance entre l'affirmation de la politique et les principes du respect de l'autonomie, de la bienfaisance et de la justice est ponctuée par une ambiguïté entre la position du CPSO et le principe de la non malfaisance, de même qu'un conflit entre les lignes directrices et le respect de l'autonomie des médecins.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.072 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".