Bibliographic record
Abstract
The parents of some terminally ill children have reported that being asked to authorise removal of life-sustaining measures is akin to being requested to sign a "death warrant". This dilemma leaves families not only enduring the grief of losing a loved one, but also with feelings of ambivalence, anxiety and guilt. A straightforward method by which the parents of terminally ill children can entrust the role of healthcare surrogate to the treating physician is presented. The cornerstone of this paradigm is parental awareness that the physician will act in the child's best interest, even if that means discontinuing life-sustaining measures. The goal is to mitigate parental guilt and fear of misperception, by self and others, of having given up on their child. From a moral standpoint this concept is an appealing option as it conforms to the four basic principles of medical ethics. While laws in the USA and several European nations prevent members of the medical team from taking on the responsibilities of healthcare surrogate for terminally ill patients, formal and informal precedence for this option already exists in France, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the Canadian province of Manitoba.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".