Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dominant view of autonomy in bioethics has been described as procedural, individualist, and minimalist: it stipulates that all autonomy requires is that the agent not be directly coerced, and that they have the relevant cognitive capacities to make a decision. Those familiar with the bioethical landscape will know that this approach has been criticized by both relational and non-relational views for inappropriately classifying agents as autonomous and failing to identify legitimate constraints on autonomy. A further criticism is that the focus on decision-making is narrow and implies that informed consent is the beginning and end of ethical clinical conduct. In response, autonomy has been reconceptualized over and again to account for various problems that critics think the procedural, minimalist, and individualist view, fails to diagnose. While I share all of these concerns, in this dissertation, I adopt a different approach to addressing them. In the clinical context, I do not like it is the job of ‘autonomy’ to resolve all or even most of the tensions that arise from difficult cases. In this dissertation, I offer an extended defense of using the procedural, individualist, and minimalist conception of autonomy in the clinical context. What is relatively unique about this defense is that I make it from a feminist perspective, and while I am not the first to do so, such an approach remains in the minority within academic feminist approaches to bioethics. I argue that we need to ask first what the concept of autonomy actually does in the clinical context, and ask what the consequences of adopting the modified, often more demanding, views of autonomy proposed by its critics, both relational and non-relational, would be. The overarching argument in the dissertation is that the costs of doing so are too high (Chapters. 1-3), and that adopting a procedural, minimalist, individualist conception of autonomy for the purposes of clinical decision-making (developed in Chapter 4) is not deficient, so long as we also attend to other important obligations and considerations, like those from justice, and a more robustly developed conception of respect for persons (Chapters 5-6).
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 | 0.053 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.116 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".