Physician-assisted suicide—a clean bill of health?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) laws have been enacted in five US States and, along with physician-administered euthanasia, in Canada and the Netherlands. Sources of data: Annual reports of the Oregon Health Authority and published research papers. Areas of agreement: Not all recipients of lethal drugs use them to end their lives. Improvements in palliative care provision. Areas of controversy: Rising numbers of deaths from PAS. Emergence of 'doctor shopping' and multiple-prescribing. Absence of qualitative scrutiny of assessment process. No re-assessment or oversight when prescribed drugs are ingested. Recent pressures to extend Oregon's PAS law. Growing points: Reasons given for seeking PAS indicate this is a societal rather than a clinical issue and raise the question whether adjudicating on requests for legalized PAS is an appropriate role for doctors. Areas for timely research: Research into quality of decision-making in requests for PAS and into potential role of doctors as expert witnesses rather than judges in requests for PAS.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it