MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362521179 · doi:10.1080/15265161.2023.2186524

Ethics Debriefs and Moral Distress: What are we Doing?

2023· letter· en· W4362521179 on OpenAlexaff
A. Lee de Bie, Steve Abdool, Jeremy Butler, Alexandra H. Campbell, Maram Hassanein, Sean Hillman, Juhee Makkar, Rochelle Maurice, Jamie Robertson, Michael J. Szego, Dave Langlois

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Bioethics · 2023
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsLakeridge HealthUniversity Health NetworkQueen's UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistressPsychologyEngineering ethicsEnvironmental ethicsSocial psychologySociologyPsychotherapistPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our team at the Centre for Clinical Ethics has long been engaged in internal discussion about the purpose and value of ethics debriefs and their purported role in reducing moral distress (Morley an...

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 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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.010
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.150
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 head0.250
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.263 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of BioethicsSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207