MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055256790 · doi:10.1136/bmj.g6336

Canadian court hears arguments on physician assisted suicide for severely ill patients

2014· article· en· W2055256790 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Owen Dyer

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComparative and International Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical emergencyMedicineSuicide preventionPoison control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada’s Supreme Court this week heard arguments in a case that will decide the legality of physician assisted suicide for severely ill people, amid signs that government lawyers face an uphill fight in persuading justices of the benefits of the current law, under which doctors’ assistance in dying is a crime equivalent to manslaughter. The constitutional challenge was brought by the children of Kathleen Carter, who had to travel to Switzerland at age 89 to end her life, and resembles a landmark 1993 case in which the court ruled 5-4 against legalising the practice. But the current hearing takes place in a much transformed political landscape. A week before the case opened, an Ipsos …

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.755

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0620.012
Scholarly communication0.0120.003
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0390.035
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.308 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicComparative and International Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207