Bibliographic record
Abstract
After a diagnosis of life-threatening illness, decisions must be made regarding various treatment options including life-sustaining interventions. The preservation of dignity is commonly invoked in these discussions with patients, their substitute decision makers, and health care providers. Current thoughts on dignity explore two main ideas: dignity as intrinsic worth and dignity as worth judged according to extrinsic socially based constructs. For the most part, both notions of dignity are appealed to in discussions of continuing or withholding/withdrawing treatments and in debates on the legalization of assisted death. These conceptions of dignity are value-laden and frequently biased, and therefore should be used with caution, if at all, in discussions with patients and their substitute decision makers. The fundamental issues in discussion with all patients diagnosed with a life-threatening illness are ones of respect for persons, acceptance, caring, and the value of interpersonal relationships.
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 | 0.010 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.004 |
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".