Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some situations place healthcare professionals in a dilemma where two ethical principles are in conflict and none of the choices are optimal. Despite the potential consequences of this quandary, no previous study has examined ethical dilemmas in optometry. Objective. This article concludes a series of three articles reporting the results of a study that sought to identify the ethical dilemmas experienced by optometrists and to describe some typical scenarios. Method. Two hundred forty optometrists completed an online survey. Results. A breach of trust can present an optometrist with a dilemma as to whether or not to maintain their relationship with the patient. The most common dilemma involves the billing of professional fees on top of the basic exam. Several other ethical dilemmas were worrisome, including those involving sexual or seductive advances by patients. Conclusion. Many ethical issues have been identified and described. These results will be useful for academic and professional bodies in helping them prepare optometrists for ethical decisions that can sometimes be difficult.
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 | 0.018 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".