MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7155532721 · doi:10.59236/emro.v27i8a258

Life After

2025· article· W7155532721 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kathryn Albright

Notice bibliographique

RevueEducational Media Reviews Online · 2025
Typearticle
Langue
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueDisability Rights and Representation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTheme (computing)NothingRidiculousState (computer science)SentenceOrder (exchange)Wife

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Distributed by Good DocsProduced by Colleen Cassingham and Lyntoria NewtonDirected by Reid Davenport2025, Streaming, 99 mins "Her body was like a battlefield." This quote from Life After describes disabled activist Elizabeth Bouvia, who made headlines in the early 1980s when she took a California hospital to court in order to get legal grounds to force them to assist in her suicide. Elizabeth, almost completely dependent on others to live due to a body crippled by cerebral palsy and degenerative arthritis, no longer wanted to be alive. The judge ruled against Elizabeth, who became a sudden and involuntary Right to Die activist, forcing her to continue to live an existence she found painful, humiliating, and depressing. The question, "What does it cost for Elizabeth to be alive?" is hauntingly answered by her with "Nearly $150,000 a year (as of 1997), much of it coming from state and federally funded agencies. I just feel that this is a burden to society." That final sentence encapsulates so much of the central theme in this film of the struggle of disabled bodies to function in a society not built for them, the financial ramifications that being disabled brings, the lack of accessible and affordable healthcare, and the othering of people with disabilities by a largely unsympathetic able-bodied population. The film explores this theme through several interweaving storylines—first, that of Elizabeth Bouvia, of whom almost nothing was heard after her loss in the California Courts. The film's director, Reid Davenport, himself living with a physical, mobility-related disability, sets off on a quest to find out what happened to Elizabeth Bouvia after she left the spotlight, and hopefully speak to her himself. Another thread of the film is a look into Right to Die legislation in Canada, specifically MAID (Medical Assistance in Dying) legislation that allows people with disabilities who meet the specified criteria to go through with physician-assisted suicide. Initially, this seems like a win. After all, Elizabeth's own bodily autonomy and choice were taken away from her, so it feels as though progress is being made. However, the more the film looks into MAID and interviews disabled people considering physician assisted suicide, the more disturbing questions arise. One interviewee, whose mother was his lifelong caretaker, thinks to himself during her slow death from cancer, "I'm going to die shortly after." His lack of access to home help, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic, leads him to realize his only options are either to go into care, which he views—somewhat justifiably—as a prison sentence, or choosing to go through MAID. He doesn't want to die but feels it's his only option. In discussing a Canadian bill, C-7, disability activists point out their concern with MAID, that people with disabilities could be pressured by physicians and society to access MAID instead of receiving more costly supports and services. And that, at its heart, is where Life After truly shines, in pointing out uncomfortable truths about how society views people with disabilities, as people whose quality of life is greatly or entirely diminished, no matter what they themselves say, and as drains on resources that others might better benefit from. Davenport is an excellent person to raise and navigate these questions, and seeing the world through his eyes and his experiences is critical to truly understanding the questions that viewing this film provokes. What value do we place on different human lives? Who has a right to resources? And what options do we offer those whose bodies don't function as others' do? While heavy, these questions need to be asked and discussed, and Life After will leave you pondering these thoughts long after the film ends. Awards:U.S. Documentary Special Jury Award, Sundance Film Festival

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,718
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,009
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0170,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,049
Tête enseignante GPT0,420
Écart entre enseignants0,371 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEducational Media Reviews OnlineMême sujetDisability Rights and RepresentationTravaux en français237 207