MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112254439 · doi:10.7202/1073788ar

Bioethical Principles in Home-Based Virtual Care

2020· article· en· W3112254439 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Bioethics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsKingston Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careBioethicsInternet privacyThe InternetHealthcare deliveryTelemedicineConversationDigital healthCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)BusinessComputer scienceMedicinePsychologyWorld Wide WebPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Virtual care (VC), a novel method of healthcare delivery, allows patients to stay home or at their preferred location and use personal internet-enabled devices to video-conference with their healthcare provider. VC is becoming ubiquitous across the US and Canada, particularly in response to COVID-19. In this paper, we discuss the benefits and limitations of VC and explore how it may align with or detract from the four principles of bioethics through case studies. Overall, we argue that it allows for greater accessibility, availability, and affordability of healthcare. However, certain clinical scenarios may not be suitable for VC, particularly when a thorough physical examination is required. While it may not always be clear when to use digital health technologies, it is prudent to have an honest and open conversation with the patient when offering this option.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.445
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.237 · 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