A Case for the Standardized Assessment of Testamentary Capacity
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: With an increasingly aged, frail population that holds a disproportionate amount of wealth, clinicians (especially those with expertise in older adults) may be asked with more frequency to offer a clinical opinion on testamentary capacity (TC), the mental capacity to make a will. METHOD: This paper reviews the legal criteria as well as the empirical research on assessment tools for determining testamentary capacity (TC). We also review the relevance of instruments used for the assessment of other decisional capacities in order to evince the potential value of developing a standardized assessment of TC for clinician experts. RESULTS: The legal criteria, often referred to as a "test", for determining requisite TC (Banks v. Goodfellow) have remained much the same since 1870 with minimal clinical input and, as such, there has been little development in TC assessment instruments. Decisional instruments designed to assess Consent to Treatment may have relevance for TC. CONCLUSION: We make the case for a semi-structured interview that includes standardized criteria for the legal test for TC, supplemented by a validated brief neuropsychological assessment, which together comprise a Contemporaneous Assessment Instrument (CAI) for TC.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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