Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between a family physician and their patients often spans many years. The primary care physician guides the patient through medical procedures and complicated decisions. Even if the physician is not the doctor making all the decisions or tailoring the treatment plan, they are often viewed by the patient as the case manager. The importance of this role is particularly evident in the geriatric population, where the challenge lies in balancing the benefits of treating complex diseases against the potential impact on the patient’s quality of life. The physician’s ability to navigate such complex issues stems not only from their professional capabilities but also from the personal relationship between them and the patient. While friendship that tends to develop over the years between a doctor and their patient can often aid the doctor in such decision-making process, occasionally such a relationship can be a pitfall. A doctor-patient relationship grounded in compassion optimizes the decision-making process to better meet the patient’s needs. That being said, it is also understood that crossing the bounds of the traditional doctor-patient relationship can present significant moral dilemmas. This story illustrates the relationship between a family physician and an elderly patient that spans over two decades. Their friendship, partially due to a prior acquaintance, influences many of their interactions, culminating in the patient’s tragic death. This text explores the sometimes-conflicting obligations of friendship versus professionalism and the ethical dilemma in of those intersecting responsibilities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".