Promoting healthcare decision making and the inherent dignity of patients: Presentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Catholic moral teaching affirms that the consent of patients is necessary to authorize healthcare interventions affecting them but does not specify conditions for obtaining consent or assessing decision-making capacity. This article reviews papers in this issue that authors have developed from presentations they made during a recent International Association of Catholic Bioethics (IACB) colloquium held in Quebec City, Canada. These papers contribute to advancing ethical thinking on decision-making capacity and consent. In various ways, they call for respecting the dignity of all patients by promoting their participating as much as possible in making healthcare decisions. These papers consider decision making to be relational and to encompass a range of capabilities. They examine the role of family members and other decision-making supporters in promoting the capabilities of patients whose mental health condition or disability renders them unable often to meet typical clinical and legal standards for decision-making capacity.
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 | 0.018 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".