MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071011727 · doi:10.1080/07481180600742525

People Who Have Committed a Certain Sin Ought to be Dead

2006· letter· en· W2071011727 on OpenAlexaff
Antoon A. Leenaars

Bibliographic record

VenueDeath Studies · 2006
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFree Will and Agency
Canadian institutionsWind Energy Institute of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPremisePsychologyPhilosophyLawPsychoanalysisEpistemologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People who have committed a certain sin ought to be dead; I am a person who has committed that sin; therefore, I ought to be dead. Thus is the logic of a suicidal mind. Lester, Szaz, and others argue the 'sinner' should always be allowed to kill him/herself. Shneidman, Leenaars and others do not agree. Once one knows the suicidal mind, it is easy to conclude the suicidal mind is not rational. The first premise is false! Therefore, the question is not, "Is suicide rational?" but "What is suicide?." Once you know the suicidal mind, you will agree with Shneidman and Leenaars, not Lester. Is it a good death if the sinner kills him/herself because he/she committed a certain sin?

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDeath StudiesSame topicFree Will and AgencyFrench-language works237,207