MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2208915914 · doi:10.1080/07481187.2015.1029142

Attitudes Regarding Palliative Sedation and Death Hastening Among Swiss Physicians: A Contextually Sensitive Approach

2015· article· en· W2208915914 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueDeath Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersSchweizerische Akademie der Medizinischen WissenschaftenAkademie der NaturwissenschaftenAcademy of Medical Sciences
KeywordsPalliative carePalliative sedationMedicineExistentialismPsychologySedationAssisted suicideNursingFamily medicinePsychotherapistPsychiatryAnesthesiaPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Switzerland, where assisted suicide but not euthanasia is permitted, the authors sought to understand how physicians integrate palliative sedation in their practice and how they reflect on existential suffering and death hastening. They interviewed 31 physicians from different care settings. Five major attitudes emerged. Among specialized palliative care physicians, convinced, cautious and doubtful attitudes were evident. Within unspecialized settings, palliative sedation was more likely to be considered as death hastening: clinicians either avoid it with an inexperienced attitude or practice it with an ambiguous attitude, raising the issue of unskilled and abusive uses of sedatives at the end of life.

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)0.000
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 score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.316
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.128 · 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