Bibliographic record
Abstract
Medical associations and leading courts reinforce the duty of physicians who conscientiously object to participating in treatment indicated for their patients to refer them to non-objecting practitioners. Ethical and legal duties require continuity of care when physicians withdraw from patients' treatment on grounds of conscience. The duty to refer might affect gynecologists when their patients request for example, contraceptive means, sterilization, abortion, medically assisted reproductive procedures, or gender reassignment. Legislation and leading law courts, notably the UK Supreme Court and Constitutional Court of Colombia, and professional associations such as the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, have clarified the duty to refer. Physicians are expected to cater their individual conscience to their professional ethical and legal duties, favoring their patients' choices over their personal objections. Physicians can object to "hands-on" conduct of procedures they find objectionable, but cannot deny referral on grounds of complicity in what other care providers do.
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 | 0.014 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".