MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128901319

Euthanasia: An Indian Perspective

2019· article· en· W3128901319 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ritu Agarwal, Bhavya Balyan

Bibliographic record

VenueZENITH International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDignityAssisted suicideRight to diePrinciple of legalityLawPerspective (graphical)Terminally illPain and sufferingMedicinePalliative carePsychiatryPolitical scienceNursing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Euthanasia is a way of ending a person's life who has been suffering from intolerable pain or undignified death. It means ending the life a person who is suffering from some terminal or mental illness which is making his life miserable as well as painful or ending a life which is not worth living. Many patients in a persistent vegetative state or else in terminal illness do not want to be a burden on their family members. In such cases euthanasia can be considered as a way to upheld the ‘Right to life’ by honouring ‘Right to die’ with dignity. But the main problem is that how should one decide whether his life is any longer worth living or not. Euthanasia may be classified as active or positive euthanasia, passive or negative euthanasia, voluntary euthanasia, involuntary euthanasia and non-voluntary euthanasia. Euthanasia is legalized in the Netherlands, Colombia, Belgium, Luxembourg, Albania and Canada. In India, passive euthanasia is legalized but not active euthanasia. The question will always arise about the legality, conduct and sanctity of euthanasia especially in country like ours, where there are different views over the moral, ethical, and legal issues of euthanasia.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.306
GPT teacher head0.567
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZENITH International Journal of Multidisciplinary ResearchSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207