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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score0.679

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
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