Awareness and decision making in Professional ethics : The New Code of the Psychological Society of Ireland
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper describes the development of the 1998 revision of the Psychological Society of Ireland's Code of Professional Ethics. The Code incorporates the European Meta-Code of Ethics and an ethical decision-making procedure borrowed from the Canadian Psychological Association. An example using the procedure is presented. To aid decision making, a classification of different kinds of stakeholder (i. e., interested party) affected by ethical decisions is offered. The author contends (1) that psychologists should assert the right, which is an important aspect of professional autonomy, to make discretionary judgments, (2) that to be justified in doing so they need to educate themselves in sound and deliberative judgment, and (3) that the process is facilitated by a code such as the Irish one, which emphasizes ethical awareness and decision making. The need for awareness and judgment is underlined by the variability in the ethical codes of different organizations and different European states: in such a context, codes should be used as broad yardsticks, rather than precise templates.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it