MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1850606208 · doi:10.15168/blj.v4i2.90

La ayuda médica a morir como derecho fundamental. Comentario crítico de la sentencia de la Corte Suprema de Canadá de 6 de Febrero de 2015, asunto Carter v. Canadá

2015· article· en· W1850606208 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fernando Rey Martínez

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversità degli Studi di Trento · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics and bioethics in healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtLawPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In its judgment in Carter v. Canada, on February 6, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada has come to recognize that medical help to die (physician-assisted suicide and active euthanasia direct) is a fundamental right. Examining the validity of the criminal law prohibiting assisted suicide (including hospice), has concluded that it is unconstitutional to deny medical help to die adult patients relevant to the request as a result of an illness or disability that causes them permanent and irreversible intolerable suffering. This paper analyzes and critically evaluates this relevant decision.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.432
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversità degli Studi di TrentoSame topicEthics and bioethics in healthcareFrench-language works237,207