MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2208584532 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.151238

Right to die in Canada: respecting the wishes of physician conscientious objectors

2015· editorial· en· W2208584532 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
John C. Fletcher

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2015
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConscientious objectorLawMedicineJurisprudencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On Feb. 6, 2016, it is likely to become legal in Canada for a physician to aid a patient in dying. For physicians who believe this is a compassionate change in the law, the remaining questions of how to go about this are administrative. Their convictions and the law would be in alignment. However,

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.596
Threshold uncertainty score0.804

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.012
Scholarly communication0.0140.003
Open science0.0060.002
Research integrity0.0380.042
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.365 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207