Desafíos contemporáneos a la ética y profesionalismo de los cirujanos orales y maxilofaciales en Colombia: una perspectiva desde los principios
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antecedentes: cambios continuos en nuestras condiciones económicas y en el entorno social durante las últimas décadas han contribuido a la aparición de comportamientos que impactan negativamente la práctica profesional y presupone desafíos éticos en cirugía oral y maxilofacial. Objetivo: fomentar la reflexión y recuperar la conciencia sobre los estándares éticos que se deben procurar y mantener en la práctica clínica. Métodos: se utilizaron los cuatro principios bioéticos como marco teórico y sistemático para describir dilemas éticos comunes que potencialmente pueden enfrentar los cirujanos orales y maxilofaciales. Resultados: dilemas éticos que incluyen el comprometimiento del consentimiento informado, daños potenciales a los pacientes y el trato injusto a las personas han sido descritos. Conclusiones: A medida que el panorama de práctica de la cirugía oral y maxilofacial cambia, nuevas circunstancias pueden erosionar los principios éticos incorporados en nuestro código de ética.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".