MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009183577 · doi:10.1111/spol.12587

Value‐based issues and policy change: Medical assistance in dying in four narratives

2020· article· en· W3009183577 on OpenAlex
Nathalie Burlone

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Policy and Administration · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFraming (construction)NarrativeHypocrisyNewspaperAccountabilityPolitical scienceSociologyValue (mathematics)Public administrationLawHistoryArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In 2014, Québec became the first province in Canada to allow medical assistance in dying (MAID) by adopting the Act Respecting End‐of‐Life Care. This was, and still is, an important policy change. It involves a singular and highly moral issue that generated debates spanning over a longer period than that specific to the law's development and adoption. Using French and English newspapers' renderings of these debates in Québec between 2005 and 2015, this study deconstructs MAID's journey in the province into four periods, each characterized by a specific narrative: flexible precaution, legal hypocrisy, accountability imperative, and ineluctable adaptation. These four narratives allow us to better understand MAID's framing process as they reveal the underlying rationales of three overarching frames covering the 2005–2015 period: the legal frame, the social progress frame, and the service provision frame.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.625
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.297
GPT teacher head0.564
Teacher spread0.267 · 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