Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article présente la synthèse d’une enquête en ligne, réalisée auprès des travailleurs sociaux du Québec afin de connaître leur position au sujet de l’euthanasie volontaire (EV) et de l’aide au suicide (AS). Les résultats abondent dans le sens des études répertoriées où les travailleurs sociaux se montrent favorables aux deux pratiques. Les répondants expriment toutefois une plus grande considération pour l’EV que pour l’AS. Ils insistent pour qu’on s’assure d’abord de soins appropriés et accessibles aux personnes. Dans l’éventualité où l’EV ou l’AS seraient permises par la loi, les répondants souhaitent que des critères d’encadrement de ces pratiques soient mis en place. Les difficultés qu’ils identifient, en lien avec les demandes d’EV ou d’AS des personnes, se résument en la difficulté d’intervenir dans certains contextes de souffrances et de fin de vie.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".