MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

‘What lay ahead ...’: a media portrayal of disability and assisted suicide

2009· article· en· W2085027674 on OpenAlex
Karen D. Schwartz, Zana Marie Lutfiyya

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research in Special Educational Needs · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNewspaperAssisted suicidePsychologyCriminologyPsychiatryMedia studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our society treats people with disabilities in an inequitable manner when compared with non‐disabled people. This marginalisation is especially telling in the area of end‐of‐life issues. The confounding of disability with terminal illness can support practices of encouraging death via assisted suicide and other means for people who, although vulnerable, are not at the end of their lives. The purpose of this paper is to examine a series of news articles covering a Canadian story of assisted suicide. From 2004–2006, newspapers followed the case of Marielle Houle, a mother accused of assisting her son in committing suicide. Although he had a disabling condition at the time of his death, Fariala was not at the end of his life. We use the analytical framework of critical discourse analysis to understand what role, if any, the press played in creating and reinforcing larger societal assumptions about living and dying with a disability.

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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.424
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.349 · 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