MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7033405996

Recent advances: Medical ethics

2000· article· en· W7033405996 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilMedical Research Council Canada
KeywordsMedical ethicsNursing ethicsHippocratic OathInformation ethicsMilitary medical ethicsMedical practiceMedical careBioethics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent advances in medical ethics?This may sound odd if your vision of medical ethics is the application to medicine of the Hippocratic oath.If, however, you believe that the goal of medical ethics is to improve the quality of patient care by identifying, analysing, and attempting to resolve the ethical problems that arise in the practice of clinical medicine, 1 the concept of "recent advances" won't come as such a shock.In this article I review advances in medical ethics in five areas-end of life care, medical error, priority setting, biotechnology, and medical ethics education-and anticipate two future issues, "eHealth" and global bioethics.

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)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.012
Scholarly communication0.0080.014
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0100.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.005

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 head0.196
GPT teacher head0.611
Teacher spread0.415 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207