Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: As we approach the end of our lives, many of us will have a desire for hastened death (DHD). Fortunately, our ability to respond to suffering at the end of life is improving. At the same time, in many jurisdictions, changes are underway to legislate physician-assisted death. This compels us as clinicians to explore DHD in a compassionate way - to reduce suffering and reduce premature death. This challenge is becoming more compelling as a large cohort of individuals, who value autonomy and control, age and experience illness. RECENT FINDINGS: Studies confirm that DHD is not always a request to die. Clarifying the intention behind the desire and exploring the individual factors and underlying reasons behind the wish have been described. Another theme questions our basic assumptions about these statements - a normal part of a human experience or an indicator of disease. This tension is also manifested in the appropriate balance between patient autonomy and preventing harm. SUMMARY: We have a professional responsibility to mindfully explore with the patient the suffering that can be relieved and the suffering that remains.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".