MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027951456 · doi:10.1136/bmj.g5307

Canadian doctors support new stance on dying with dignity as legislative changes loom

2014· article· en· W2027951456 on OpenAlexaffabout
Barbara Kermode-Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and cultural studies analysis
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationDignityDeath with dignityConscienceLawPolitical scienceAssisted suicideLegislatureRight to dieBill of rightsPublic administrationMedicineHuman rights

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Delegates at the Canadian Medical Association’s (CMA) general council meeting have overwhelmingly backed moves to modify the association’s existing policy on physician assisted death. At the meeting in Ottawa on 19 August, 91% of delegates voted to adopt an advisory resolution presented by the CMA’s board of directors that said it “supports the right of all physicians, within the bounds of existing legislation, to follow their conscience when deciding whether to provide medical aid in dying.” The decision recognised likely impending changes to Canada’s legislation surrounding “dying in dignity.” Euthanasia and assisted suicide are currently illegal in Canada under its criminal code, but in June 2014 Quebec became the first Canadian province to adopt right to die legislation. When it comes into force, Quebec’s Bill 52 will …

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.860
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0320.021
Scholarly communication0.0120.004
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0100.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.002

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.279 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicLegal and cultural studies analysisFrench-language works237,207