MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283169398 · doi:10.1177/09514848221109833

Causing harm but doing good: Recognizing and overcoming the burden of necessary evil enactment in healthcare service professions

2022· article· en· W4283169398 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Services Management Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEthics in Business and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmHealth careService (business)Healthcare serviceBusinessNursingMedicinePublic relationsPsychologyPolitical scienceMarketingSocial psychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Necessary evils - defined as acts that cause physical, psychological, or emotional harm to victims but are for the greater good of either the victim or society - are an everyday occurrence in the healthcare industry across the globe and across healthcare service professions. Healthcare professionals are tasked with behaviors that result in pain and suffering (e.g. nurses providing shots to patients; oncologists communicating cancer diagnoses) for the betterment of their patients and stakeholders. Although these behaviors are professionally mandated, they can also be cognitively and psychologically taxing for enactors. The current conceptual paper explores the undesired effects of performing necessary evils and proposes various actions through which healthcare organizations can reduce the negative repercussions of necessary evil enactment on healthcare service professionals.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.429
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.003
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 head0.362
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.165 · 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