Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduccion: La muerte es un proceso universal que acontece a todo ser humano, por ello debe sobrevenir de la manera mas adecuada, evitando el sufrimiento innecesario. Existen opciones diversas a tomar al final de la vida: eutanasia, adecuacion del esfuerzo terapeutico, suicidio asistido, rechazo del tratamiento y sedacion paliativa. Objetivo: Describir la regulacion existente sobre la eutanasia, la adecuacion del esfuerzo terapeutico y el suicidio asistido a nivel nacional e internacional. Metodologia: Revision narrativa sistematica. Busqueda bibliografica en las siguientes bases de datos: SciELO, Dialnet, Science Direct; periodicos; legislacion del BOE; guia de la SECPAL y Asociacion Federal: derecho a morir dignamente. Resultados: La eutanasia se encuentra despenalizada en cinco paises: Colombia, Canada, Holanda, Belgica y Luxemburgo, y en el estado de California, siempre que se padezca una enfermedad terminal de pronostico limitado, inferior a los seis meses de vida, que cause un sufrimiento insoportable en un enfermo mayor de edad. El suicidio asistido es legal en los estados de California, Oregon, Montana, Vermont y Washington en Estado Unidos, Colombia, Canada, Holanda, Suiza y Luxemburgo para residentes, a excepcion de Suiza, donde es posible la aplicacion de esta practica a extranjeros. Conclusiones: En el final de la vida todo profesional sanitario ha de respetar las decisiones autonomas del paciente, siempre que esten amparadas por la ley, por encima de sus valores y creencias, evitando las medidas desproporcionadas que prolonguen el sufrimiento de la persona. Palabras clave: derecho a morir, voluntad en vida, eutanasia, cuidados paliativos al final de la vida
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".