Attitudes toward Reciprocity Systems for Organ Donation and Allocation for Transplantation: Table 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many of those who support organ donation do not register to become organ donors. The use of reciprocity systems, under which some degree of priority is offered to registered donors who require an organ transplant, is one suggestion for increasing registration rates. This article uses a combination of survey and focus group methodologies to explore the reaction of Canadians to a reciprocity proposal. Our results suggest that the response is mixed. Participants are more convinced of the efficacy than they are of the fairness of a reciprocity system. Those more positive about donation (decided donors and those leaning toward donation) rate the system more positively. Although there is general endorsement of the notion that those who wish to receive should be prepared to give (the Golden Rule), this does not translate into universal support for a reciprocity system. In discussions of efficacy, decided donors focus on the positive impact of reciprocity, whereas undecided donors also reflect on the limits of reciprocity for promoting registration. The results demonstrate divided support for reciprocity systems in the Canadian context, with perceptions of efficacy at the cost of fairness. Further studies are warranted prior to considering a reciprocity system in Canada.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".