MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406177263 · doi:10.1177/1478271520043404011

MEDICAL PROFESSIONALISM AND CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION: ARE THE TWO COMPATIBLE?

2004· article· en· W4406177263 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Gordon

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConscientious objectorPsychologyPhilosophyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A growing concern exists about the tensions that may be found between medical professionalism and the concept of conscientious objection, on the part of physicians and other healthcare professionals, regarding healthcare decisions made by patients or their surrogates. This tension reflects the concept of what it means to be a healthcare professional in contrast to one's strongly held personal or religious ethical convictions. The major concerns revolve around issues at the beginning or at the end of life. These issues must be addressed to avoid serious conflicts with those for whom healthcare professionals have a duty to serve.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.369 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of EdinburghSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207