MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1806855619 · doi:10.7202/1029350ar

Demandes d’euthanasie dans les prisons belges. Entre souffrance psychique, dignité humaine et peine de mort

2015· article· fr· W1806855619 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sonja Snacken, Caroline Devynck, Willem Distelmans, Serge Gutwirth, Christophe Lemmens

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminologie · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En Belgique, l’euthanasie peut être appliquée légalement par des médecins à la demande expresse et répétée d’un patient qui se trouve dans une situation médicale sans issue et fait état d’une souffrance physique ou psychique constante et insupportable qui ne peut être apaisée et qui résulte d’une affection accidentelle ou pathologique grave et incurable. Au cours des deux dernières années, 17 demandes d’euthanasie ont été formulées par des détenus belges pour cause de souffrance psychique insupportable. Ils purgent tous une longue peine de prison ou une mesure de protection pour malades mentaux à durée indéterminée. Les auteurs examinent les questions éthiques, juridiques et criminologiques soulevées par ces demandes, car si les normes nationales et internationales garantissent aux détenus un droit à l’équivalence des soins médicaux, l’impact potentiel du contexte pénitentiaire sur leur souffrance psychique doit être pris en compte.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.268
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.532
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.011 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminologieSame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207