MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3182390178

Somatic Oppression and Relational Autonomy: Revisiting Medical Aid in Dying through a Feminist Lens

2020· article· en· W3182390178 on OpenAlexaff
Jonas-Sébastien Beaudry

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFoucault, Power, and Ethics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOppressionAutonomyInformed consentContext (archaeology)Personal autonomySocial psychologyRelational theorySociologyPsychologyPolitical scienceLawMedicineAlternative medicinePolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing upon disability studies and theories of relational autonomy, this essay illustrates how somatic oppression may affect one’s autonomy — conceptualized as a socially contextualized competency — in the context of Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD), in ways that are not captured by current safeguards focused on protecting free and informed consent. From a relational standpoint, securing free and informed consent fails to protect individual autonomy, and instead we need to examine how medical and social relationships, practices, and institutions can hinder or enable the development and practice of autonomy. I conclude that oppression poses a credible threat to the autonomy of MAiD patients and thus warrants further attention.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.492
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.335
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicFoucault, Power, and EthicsFrench-language works237,207