Who Protects Clinical Learners in Canada? Ethical Considerations for Institutional Policy on Patient Bias
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Navigating the social dynamics of clinical spaces can be an added challenge to the complexities of clinical work. Acts of bias and discrimination from patients have been found to affect healthcare workers both physically and psychologically. As more attention is paid to addressing discrimination by patients, we raise attention to the experiences and unique needs of clinical learners. Given that learners play a vital role in the functioning of hospital ecosystems, we advocate for the inclusion of their voices in any revision to policy and practice. In this paper, we critically examine the academic literature on learner’s experiences with mistreatment from patients, and their families. We outline the major gaps in policy, process, training, and institutional culture, noting the urgent need for institutions to address these gaps in ways that are meaningful to learners. Our goal is to highlight the lack of bioethics attention to this matter and propose areas where we can add value and support. With this goal in mind, we present a series of tables with guiding values, ethical considerations and questions for institutions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it