MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6922378326 · doi:10.11575/prism/34148

Professional Ethics

2005· other· en· W6922378326 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePRISM (University of Calgary) · 2005
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDutyProfessional ethicsGovernment (linguistics)Legal ethicsProfessional associationLegislationPower (physics)Professional responsibilityProfessional conduct

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A defining characteristic of a profession is that it is self-governing and independent of direct daily government regulation. In general, each professional worker is autonomous and free to accept any work and any client, or to turn down any work or client. However, professional ethics usually restrict this choice when the prospective client is desperate for the professional services and turning the client down would leave him or her without practical help. After agreeing to serve the client, the professional cannot terminate the relationship and abandon the client at a vulnerable stage. If a professional is going to terminate services in midstream, he or she should endeavour to assist the client to find another professional to carry on. A professional may have an ethical duty to render services to a client or patient, and not abandon that person, even without payment. Provincial legislation that organizes professions also creates, delegates, and vests each self-governing body with considerable power to regulate the profession. These bodies are composed, primarily, of senior and respected active members of the profession, who are elected every few years by the total membership to manage the profession (hence "self-governing"). Often there are a few laypersons on these regulatory bodies, which are variously known by the terms "society" (as in Law Society), "board" or "college" (as in the College of Physicians and Surgeons). These bodies are divided into a number of committees to manage various functions such as administration, education and admission, ethics, insurance, and public relations. All have a discipline committee. A client or a third party who believes that a professional has violated the code will find it easy to complain to the governing body. There is no cost or risk to the complainant to bring a concern to the governing body. In addition to child welfare, professionals must report other forms of misconduct. Lawyers must keep their client information strictly confidential, but Canadian law societies have long prescribed special circumstances under which the disclosure of confidential client information to external authorities is permitted and even required. For example, professional codes of conduct contain rules that permit lawyers to disclose confidential client information where they have reasonable grounds for believing that a crime is likely to be committed in the future. This reporting becomes a mandatory requirement, under provincial or federal statutes, when the lawyer suspects that the crime involves violence or "there is an imminent risk to an identifiable person or group of death or serious bodily harm."

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0390.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePRISM (University of Calgary)Same topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207