Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sommaire: Le taux de dons d'organes au Canada est l'un des plus faibles parmi tous les pays industrialisés. En 2004, il était de 13 donneurs par million alors qu'on peut espérer, en prenant les mesures appropriées, atteindre dans l'avenir près de 30 donneurs par million. Dans un contexte où la rareté des donneurs potentiels, c'est‐à‐dire des personnes en état de décès neurologique, est la cause principale d'insuffisance d'organes, il est essentiel que des mesures soient prises pour réduire le plus possible la perte de ces donneurs. Trois raisons expliquent cette perte: les donneurs éventuels ne sont pas bien identifiés, leur famille n'a pas été approchée ou bien elle a refusé le don. Bien que cause importante de la perte de donneurs, le refus des familles n'explique cette situation qu'en partie. Elle découle tout autant d'un manque de formation des professionnels de la santé et de coordination des activités reliées au don et à la transplantation des organes qui présentent un caractère fortement multidisciplinaire et ont un impact important sur la disponibilité des lits de soins intensifs et des salles d'opération. Pourtant, au Canada comme dans tout autre pays, le meilleur moyen de lutter contre le commerce d'organes est d'organiser un système efficace permettant d'augmenter le taux de donneurs effectifs pour répondre à la demande. Nous devons donc porter nos efforts sur l'organisation plus efficace du système de don et de transplantation des organes et travailler sans relâche à réduire la perte de donneurs potentiels, en agissant de manière concertée sur chacune de ses causes. L'adoption du principe du consentement présumé, qui implique de renverser la présomption de droit civil selon laquelle une personne doit donner un consentement éclairé au don de ses organes, ne peut servir de substitut à ce travail d'organisation et de coordination et doit être vue comme un dernier recours. Abstract: The organ donor rate in Canada is one of the lowest among industrialized countries. In 2004, there were thirteen donors per million population; however, if the appropriate measures are taken, this rate may one day reach close to thirty donors per million. In a context where the scarcity of potential donors ‐ persons in a state of neurological death ‐ is without a doubt the major reason for organ shortage, it is essential that measures be taken to minimize the loss of such donors. The three main causes for the loss of donors are the failure to identify potential donors, the failure to approach the family, or the family's refusal to consent to organ donation. Although it is a major reason for the loss of donors, refusal by families to consent to organ donation represents only a small part of the overall picture. Other equally significant factors are the lack of training for health professionals and the lack of coordination with respect to organ donation and organ transplant activities, both of which are highly multidisciplinary in nature and have a considerable impact on the availability of icu beds and operating rooms. In Canada, however, as in any other country, the best way to fight against the trade in human organs is to organize an efficient system to increase the actual donor rate to meet the demand. Therefore, our efforts must focus first and foremost on improving the organization of the organ donation and organ transplant system. We must also work tirelessly to reduce the loss of potential donors through concerted action on each of these issues. Adopting the principle of presumed consent, which implies the overturning of the presumption of civil rights according to which an individual must give his or her informed consent to donate his or her organs, cannot be a substitute for implementing an organized and coordinated system and must be viewed as a last resort under the circumstances.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".