MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164740885 · doi:10.1080/07481187.2021.1926630

Assistance in dying: Conditions for international comparison

2021· article· en· W3164740885 on OpenAlexafffund
Samuel Blouin, Murielle Pott

Bibliographic record

VenueDeath Studies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungPierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation
KeywordsTRACE (psycholinguistics)Key (lock)Political scienceSociologyComputer sciencePhilosophyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This special issue of Death Studies interrogates conditions for conducting international comparisons of assistance in dying regimes, and of related discourses and practices. To do so, it provides comparative social sciences and humanities perspectives on assistance in dying. In this editorial introduction, we first trace the origin of this special issue to the symposium held in 2018 in Lausanne, Switzerland. We then offer a short exploration of how assistance in dying regimes have been compared in the literature. Finally, we identify key conditions for conducting international comparisons of assistance in dying based on the articles presented in this issue of Death Studies.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDeath StudiesSame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207