MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2764112323 · doi:10.5204/qutlr.v17i2.721

Medical Assistance in Dying: Lessons for Australia from Canada

2017· article· en· W2764112323 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jocelyn Downie

Bibliographic record

VenueQUT Law Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermissiveLawPolitical scienceNorthern territoryProject commissioningPublishingSociologyMedicineEthnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada has recently witnessed dramatic changes in end of life law and policy. Most notably, we have moved from a prohibitive to a permissive regime with respect to medical assistance in dying (MAiD). As a number of Australian states are actively engaged in debates about whether to decriminalise MAiD, it is worth reviewing the Canadian experience and drawing out any lessons that might usefully inform the current processes in Australia.
 
 *Please note that this is an invited contribution and hence not peer reviewed.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.780

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0230.006
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0080.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.346
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations14
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQUT Law ReviewSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207