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 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)0.004
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.011
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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