MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Duties and Necessity

2007· book-chapter· en· W2475754203 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Penney Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2007
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPatient Dignity and Privacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDutyPolitical scienceLawLaw and economicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The defence of necessity was the route used to effectively legalize euthanasia in the Netherlands. The Dutch use of necessity focuses on the key conflict between the duty to preserve life and the duty to relieve suffering. The defence was eventually codified in 2001. The Dutch approach contrasts with the common law refusal to allow the defence of necessity to be used in murder cases, which has been re-affirmed recently in both England and Wales and Canada. These jurisdictions made differing choices regarding the use of rights and necessity as mechanisms of legal change on assisted dying. Adoption of the Dutch approach using the defence of necessity seems unlikely in common law jurisdictions. The Dutch, either through choice or happenstance, have avoided the use of constitutionally entrenched rights as the mechanism of legal change.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicPatient Dignity and PrivacyFrench-language works237,207