MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W24771791 · doi:10.1093/bja/aeu123

Carter v. Canada (Attorney General): Canadian Courts Revisit the Criminalization of Assisted Suicide, 59 Wayne L. Rev. 561 (2013)

2013· article· en· W24771791 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Donald L. Beschle

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Anaesthesia · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Systems and Judicial Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriminalizationLawPolitical scienceCriminologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1993, the Supreme Court of Canada, by a vote of 5-4, rejected a challenge to the Criminal Code of Canada's prohibition on assisted suicide.'The challenge, brought by a woman suffering from ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease), claimed that her rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of the Canadian Constitution, to dignity of the person and equal benefit of the law, were violated by a statute that had the effect of denying the disabled the right to terminate their lives while leaving 2 attempted suicide by those who could proceed unaided unpunished.A few years later, the United States Supreme Court came to the same conclusion in a factually similar case challenging the prohibition of assisted suicide on Fourteenth Amendment grounds.Both decisions found that the prohibition was justified by the difficulty of assuring, under anything less than an absolute prohibition, that vulnerable persons would not be pressured into a suicide that was not fully voluntary.In the last twenty years, two American states and several European nations have liberalized their approach to assisted suicide.With the experience of those jurisdictions as background, in June 2012 the

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.231 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of AnaesthesiaSame topicLegal Systems and Judicial ProcessesFrench-language works237,207