MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025244424 · doi:10.1179/002436310803888862

Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation

2010· article· en· W2025244424 on OpenAlexaff
John B. Shea

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Linacre Quarterly · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsRogers Communications (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrgan donationCertaintyTransplantationDonationMedicineDeclarationCause of deathLawPhilosophySurgeryInternal medicinePolitical scienceEpistemologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 1968, vital organs, necessary for life, have been removed from patients for transplantation into patients in whom corresponding organs have ceased to function. Since then this has been morally justified by the claim that the donor is “brain dead” or has suffered “cardiac death.” Brain death is defined as complete and irreversible loss of all brain function, and cardiac death is declared two to five minutes after cessation of the heartbeat. The moral problem is that the criteria used to declare that brain death or cardiac death has occurred are arbitrary, open to serious world-wide debate, variable in definition and application, and, more seriously, do not necessarily provide moral certainty that real death has occurred and that such organ retrieval does not actually cause the death of the donor. This problem has been debated over the years at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and remains a subject of legitimate debate to this day. The declaration of brain death or cardiac death also does not appear to be consistent with the teaching of Pope Benedict XVI that the definition of death receive the consensus of the entire scientific community and does not give everyone certainty that the primary criterion is respect for the life of the donor and that the organs are removed from a dead body, a cadaver.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.241 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Linacre QuarterlySame topicOrgan Donation and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207