MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401687678 · doi:10.7202/1112298ar

Key Insights and Priorities for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Clinical Ethics Consultation

2024· article· en· W4401687678 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Bioethics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthDe VeberToronto Rehabilitation InstitutePublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKey (lock)Clinical EthicsEngineering ethicsComputer scienceEngineeringComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the 2023 Canadian Bioethics Society forum, 28 practicing healthcare ethicists (PHEs) and other attendees from across Canada, including bioethics students and fellows, gathered virtually for a collaborative workshop entitled “Towards Evaluating Clinical Ethics Consultation Effectiveness: Engagement in a Scoping Review of Reported Outcomes”. The workshop was open to all members of the bioethics community who registered for the forum but was designed primarily for PHEs.

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 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)0.103
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.319
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1030.319
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.012
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 head0.492
GPT teacher head0.640
Teacher spread0.148 · 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