Bibliographic record
Abstract
The application by Lecretia Seales, in relation to the lawfulness of physician aid in dying in New Zealand, was heard by Collins J, an experienced medical jurisprudentialist. It raised issues re-ignited by the recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling in Carter v Canada and the legislative change in California. Is a continued prohibition in Australasia and the United Kingdom against physician aid in dying causing patients to be subjected to cruel, inhumane and undignified deaths or, in fact, is a legislative change unnecessary given the level of care that patients can receive and the peaceful and harmonious deaths that we often hear about in hospice and other settings. A range of arguments, some traditional and some very contemporary, were canvassed in the case of Lecretia Seales and Collins J considered each of them, commenting in detail both on points of law and matters of ethical substance. A study of his judgment therefore makes fascinating reading for those interested in end-of-life decisions and the way they are dealt with in different developed world jurisdictions, and in particular, how such ethical matters may be considered from the point of view of indigenous and marginalised cultures.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".