Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter discusses key legal issues raised by the contemporary trend to managing and sharing patient information via electronic health records (EHR). Concepts of privacy, confidentiality, consent, and security are defined and considered in the context of EHR initiatives in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia. This chapter explores whether patients have the right to withhold consent to the collection and sharing of their personal information via EHRs. It discusses opt-in and opt-out models for participation in EHRs and concludes that presumed consent for EHR participation will ensure more rapid and complete implementation, but at the cost of some personal choice for patients. The reduction in patient control over personal information ought to be augmented with strong security protections to minimize risks of unauthorized access to EHRs and fulfill legal and ethical obligations to safeguard patient information.Request access from your librarian to read this chapter's full text.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
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".