MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414308737 · doi:10.1080/15265161.2025.2543724

Not the 51st State: The Distinctive Canadian Approach to Standardizing Clinical Ethics Fellowship Programs

2025· letter· en· W4414308737 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrea Frolic, Andria Bianchi, Kevin Reel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Bioethics · 2025
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResearch ethicsMedical ethicsClinical EthicsNursing ethicsInformation ethicsMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fox and Wasserman’s article “Clinical ethics fellowship programs in the U.S. and Canada: A descriptive study of program characteristics and practices” sheds an important light on the current state ...

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)0.133
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.103
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.201
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1330.103
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.014
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0050.001
Research integrity0.0020.203
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 head0.346
GPT teacher head0.553
Teacher spread0.207 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of BioethicsSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207