MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903660685 · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00678

Medical Assistance in Dying: Challenges for Psychiatry

2018· article· en· W2903660685 on OpenAlexafffund
Roland M. Jones, Alexander I. F. Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychiatry · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of Toronto
FundersDepartment of Psychiatry, University of TorontoUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsMental illnessAutonomyPsychiatryPermissiveTerminally illPerspective (graphical)MedicinePhysical illnessMental healthPsychologyPalliative careNursingLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), which comprises euthanasia and medically assisted suicide, is practiced in a growing number of countries and jurisdictions. In countries where it is permitted, the individual who requests it must be experiencing severe pain and suffering, but not all countries require the individual to be terminally ill. In some countries the suffering may be caused by a mental disorder in the absence of physical illness or disease. The consideration of mental illness as the sole indication for MAiD is likely to be considered in more jurisdictions. However, the ethical duties of a doctor to promote health, reduce suffering and protect life may conflict with one another when viewed from the perspective of MAiD. Arguments in favour of including mental illness as a sole qualifier for MAiD include the respect for the autonomy of the individual, and the equivalence of mental illness with physical illness. Arguments against, include the view that the protection of life is paramount, and the “slippery slope” of ever more permissive practices that fail to protect the vulnerable in society. Given the ethical and other practical concerns, there is a need for psychiatric bodies internationally to provide guidance on this issue.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.031
Scholarly communication0.0110.014
Open science0.0040.015
Research integrity0.0210.034
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.005

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.330 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychiatrySame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207