MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393115644 · doi:10.1002/pmrj.13146

Toward a person‐centered ethics framework for autonomy in spinal cord injury research and rehabilitation

2024· review· en· W4393115644 on OpenAlexafffund
Anna Nuechterlein, Alexandra Olmos Pérez, Fábio Rossi, Jody L. Swift, Andrea Townson, Judy Illes

Bibliographic record

VenuePM&R · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsProvincial Health Services AuthorityNeuroDevNetUniversity of British Columbia
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsAutonomySpinal cord injuryContext (archaeology)Personal autonomyPsychologyQuality of life (healthcare)RehabilitationQuality (philosophy)Spinal cordSociologyEpistemologyPsychotherapistPolitical scienceNeurosciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we explore how the concepts of autonomy and autonomous choice are understood in the context of spinal cord injury in the academic literature, both in reporting on research results and more broadly on outcomes and quality of life. We find inconsistent, framework-absent portrayals of autonomy as well as an absence of discourse that draws upon ethical constructs and theory. In response, we advance a person-centered framework for spinal cord injury research that combines both lived experience and a disability ethics approach to fill this gap.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.611
GPT teacher head0.635
Teacher spread0.024 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePM&RSame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207