MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2428496229 · doi:10.1177/082585970902500408

Cradled between Heaven and Earth A Reply to My Patient's Family: Why I couldn't offer Active Euthanasia When you Asked for It

2009· article· en· W2428496229 on OpenAlexaff
Beverley Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Care · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeavenPalliative careWishMedicinePsychologyFrequently asked questionsFamily medicineNursingPsychoanalysisMedical educationPhilosophyTheologyArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the summer of 2008, I became involved in the care of a woman who had breast cancer. Her family requested that I end her life on a number of occasions. The request came about because she had expressed a wish to die, and because her stay on the palliative care unit did not last for days, as they had expected, but had stretched into weeks. These thoughts are an attempt to address some of the issues we discussed over those weeks…

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0190.027
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.267 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Palliative CareSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207