MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2913739263 · doi:10.1136/bmj.l576

Assisted dying: the debate continues

2019· article· en· W2913739263 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fiona Godlee

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What would it mean if the UK’s doctors moved to adopt a neutral stance on the question of assisted dying? The BMJ has advocated such a move for some years, arguing that the question of whether assisted dying should be legalised is a matter for society rather than the medical profession (doi:10.1136/bmj.e4075). Last week we heard from Sandy Buchman, president elect of the Canadian Medical Association, about his own change of heart on assisted dying (doi:10.1136/bmj.l412). We also heard from Jeff Blackmer how, in his view, the CMA’s decision to adopt a neutral stance has allowed it to …

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)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.087
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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.087
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.044
Scholarly communication0.0180.034
Open science0.0050.010
Research integrity0.0500.062
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.007

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ→Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→French-language works237,207→