Mourir comme mode de vie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On considère que le droit de mourir, en tant que mouvement social contemporain d’importance, s’est constitué en réaction aux interventions biomédicales préoccupantes qui cherchent à prolonger la vie à tout prix. Cependant, l’aide médicale à mourir est elle aussi une intervention biomédicale reposant sur des technologies biomédicales et qui se fonde sur le langage de la technique biomédicale. Bien que les partisans du droit de mourir aient souvent recours à ce langage dans l’énoncé de leurs arguments, une écoute attentive des voix de ces activistes permet de nuancer et d’affiner l’approche des aspects contradictoires et multiples de cette expérience. La façon dont ils parlent de la mort révèle des préoccupations implicites se rapprochant davantage des notions heideggériennes de « l’art » et un prolongement des anciennes conceptions de « l’art de mourir ». Acceptant l’inéluctabilité de la mort, ou de vivre de façon àêtre vers la mort, les activistes se soucient souvent bien davantage de l’art de vivre et de mourir que de technique biomédicale.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".