Les préalables à un débat sensé sur l’euthanasie, et la pertinence du document de la Commission de Réforme du droit sur l’euthanasie, considérant le projet de loi C-384
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La Commission de réforme du droit du Canada (CRD) a publié, en 1982, un document de travail intitulé Euthanasie, aide au suicide et interruption de traitement . En 2009, la députée Francine Lalonde a déposé à la Chambre des communes le projet de loi C-384 intitulé Loi modifiant le Code criminel (droit de mourir dignement) . Ce projet de loi a été défait. Une période de près de trente ans sépare ces deux documents. Quelles sont les préoccupations que partagent ces documents ? Le projet de loi envisage-t-il l’aide au suicide d’une manière qui diffère de celle du document de la CRD ? L’examen du document de la CRD, du projet de loi C-384 et des travaux de la Chambre des communes fait ressortir des difficultés persistantes dans nos discussions publiques. Certaines suggestions s’imposent à propos du débat souhaitable dans une matière aussi contentieuse que l’euthanasie et l’aide au suicide.
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 | 0.015 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| 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".