Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Both active euthanasia and assisted suicide are legal in The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg and, most recently, in Canada. AIM: Examination of national legislations of countries where both active euthanasia and assisted suicide are legal. The number of accomplished active euthanasia cases and that of assisted suicide cases. METHOD: Analysis of national statistical data. Comparison of statistical data before and after 2010. Comparison of the related practices in the surveyed countries. RESULTS: The number of active euthanasia cases markedly predominates over the number of assisted suicide cases. Cancer is a main reason for active euthanasia, or assisted suicide. In countries with a larger population, the number of active euthanasia cases is higher than that in countries with a smaller population. CONCLUSIONS: Regarding the fact that the applicants for active euthanasia withdraw their requests in a smaller number than the applicants for assisted suicide, patients prefer the choice of active euthanasia. Since the related legislative product is too recent in Canada at present, it may be only presumed that a certain preference will also develop in the related practices in Canada. Orv. Hetil., 2016, 157(40), 1595-1600.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".