MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407011542 · doi:10.1002/9781394182176.ch7

Ethical and Moral Considerations for Oral Healthcare of Frail Elders

2025· other· en· W4407011542 on OpenAlexaff
Michael I. MacEntee, Mario Brondani, N.H.J. Creugers, Shafik Dharamsi, Mary McNally

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careEngineering ethicsPsychologyEnvironmental ethicsGerontologySociologyMedicinePolitical sciencePhilosophyEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Moral principles of right and wrong influence behavior, and morality reflects the social values from cultural, familial, professional, and individual interests. All decisions and values in healthcare, especially the fiduciary responsibility of trust and confidentiality between clinicians and their patients, rest on moral actions supported by internationally acceptable principles of ethics. Failure to abide by these ethical principles leads frequently to moral distress for care providers and elder abuse for their patients. This chapter focuses on key ethical and moral dimensions and obligations influencing care for people who are frail, and offers an ethical framework and six clinical scripts to promote discussion on how moral principles influence complex clinical decisions and equality in oral healthcare for people living with frailty.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.017
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.245
GPT teacher head0.565
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEthics in medical practice→French-language works237,207→