Assumptions about Decision-Making Capacity and Aphasia: Ethical Implications and Impact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the issue of aphasia and decision-making within the context of clinical ethics and patient rights. The cases described illustrate the danger of making assumptions about the inherent competence of people with aphasia and the life-altering consequences if no attempt is made to "accommodate" or support communication when competence may be masked by aphasia. Speech-language pathologists have a moral obligation and a key role to play in providing communication support that may serve to reveal a person's intact capacity to make specific decisions, as well as in supporting the steps involved in the decision-making process. This role also extends to providing guidance, education, and training for others involved in evaluating the decision-making capacity of people with aphasia. Communication support strategies useful at each stage of the decision-making process are detailed.
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 | 0.133 | 0.215 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.105 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".