MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405313847 · doi:10.7202/1114963ar

A Typology of Ethical Issues to Better Support the Development of Ethical Sensitivity Among Healthcare Professionals

2024· article· en· W4405313847 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Bioethics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTemptationTypologyEthical dilemmaVariety (cybernetics)Engineering ethicsHealth professionalsEthical issuesHealth careDilemmaEthical decisionPsychologySociologyPolitical scienceSocial psychologyComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For many healthcare professionals, identifying the ethical issues arising from their professional practice can be a challenge, for a variety of reasons. This paper presents a typology of six different types of ethical issues that can support the development of healthcare professionals’ ethical sensitivity, i.e., their ability to identify ethical issues encountered in their day-to-day practice. In addition to defining each of these issues, i.e., ethical blindness, myopia, dilemma, temptation, silence, and distress, examples are given and possible solutions proposed.

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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.768
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0030.035
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.538
Teacher spread0.373 · 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