MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2535652735

La ayuda médica a morir como derecho fundamental: comentario crítico de la sentencia de la Corte Suprema de Canadá de 6 de febrero de 2015, asunto Carter v. Canadá

2015· article· es· W2535652735 on OpenAlex
Fernando Rey Martínez

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiario La Ley · 2015
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics and bioethics in healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyTribunalPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En la sentencia Carter v. Canada, de 6 de febrero de 2015, el Tribunal Supremo de Canada ha venido a reconocer que la ayuda medica a morir (suicidio asistido por medico y eutanasia activa directa) es un derecho fundamental. Examinando la validez de la norma penal que prohibe la ayuda al suicidio (tambien para enfermos terminales), ha concluido que es inconstitucional negar la ayuda medica a morir a enfermos adultos competentes que la pidan a consecuencia de una enfermedad o una discapacidad que les cause un sufrimiento permanente, intolerable e irreversible. El presente trabajo analiza y valora criticamente esta importante sentencia.

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.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.386
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.006
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.352 · 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