MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125930552 · doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2005.01.038

Adolescents and consent to treatment

2005· review· en· W3125930552 on OpenAlexaff
Bernard M. Dickens, Rebecca J. Cook

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegal guardianInformed consentConfidentialityConvention on the Rights of the ChildParental consentMedicineLawBest interestsLiabilityMeaning (existential)ConventionHuman rightsPsychologyPolitical scienceAlternative medicinePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adolescents, defined by WHO as 10 to 19 years old, can give independent consent for reproductive health services if their capacities for understanding have sufficiently evolved. The international Convention on the Rights of the Child, almost universally ratified, limits parental powers, and duties, by adolescents' "evolving capacities" for self-determination. Legal systems may recognize "mature minors" as enjoying adult rights of medical consent, even when consent to sexual relations does not absolve partners of criminal liability; their consent does not make the adolescents offenders. There is usually no chronological "age of consent" for medical care, but a condition of consent, meaning capacity for understanding. Like adults, mature minors enjoy confidentiality and the right to treatment according to their wishes rather than their best interests. Minors incapable of self-determination may grant or deny assent to treatment for which guardians provide consent. Emancipated minors' self-determination may also be recognized, for instance on marriage or default of adults' guardianship.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.345 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations66
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gynecology & ObstetricsSame topicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207