MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2771102057 · doi:10.1177/0706743717746662

Medical Assistance in Dying and Mental Health: A Legal, Ethical, and Clinical Analysis

2017· review· en· W2771102057 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Alexander I. F. Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationMental illnessMental healthPsychiatryPsychologyEthical issuesClinical PracticeMedicineLawNursingPolitical scienceEngineering ethics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical assistance in dying (MAiD) legislation is now over a year old in Canada, and consideration is turning to whether MAiD should be extended to include serious mental illness as the sole qualifying condition for being eligible for MAiD. This article considers this question from ethical and clinical perspectives. It argues that extending the eligibility for MAiD to include those with a serious mental illness as the sole eligibility criterion is not ethical, necessary, or supported current psychiatric practice or opinion.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.005
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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.528
Teacher spread0.366 · 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.

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

Citations32
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207