MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3187563921 · doi:10.37621/jnamsu-2020-1-7

LIFE AND DEATH. EUTANASIA

2021· article· en· W3187563921 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mykola Polishchuk

Bibliographic record

VenueJOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES OF UKRAINE · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Social Development in Ukraine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careMedicineEconomic shortageLimitingPain and sufferingDenialPandemicPsychiatryNursingLawPsychologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Government (linguistics)Political scienceDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Euthanasia is a good death in Greek. According to Wikipedia, «euthanasia» is the termination of a person's life in a quick, painless way. Euthanasia is used in people who have incurable diseases and no longer want to suffer from pain, their condition. The term «euthanasia» was first used by F. Bacon to denote easy death in the 17th century. Since 2020, certain types of euthanasia are legally allowed in Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland, Germany, Canada, parts of Australia, and in some of the sUS states. Palliative and hospice care is sometimes seen as a relative alternative to euthanasia. There are two types of euthanasia – active, which involves the administration of a dying person, drugs that cause rapid death, and passive – intentional cessation of maintenance therapy to the patient. Active euthanasia is often considered suicide with medical help, if the doctor gives the patient a drugs that will shorten his life at the request of the patient.. In Ukraine, the actions of a doctor for euthanasia are considered premeditated murder. The coronavirus pandemic has shown that many countries of the world are ready to introduce passive euthanasia, that is, in the event of mass morbidity, not only ideas are spread, but also projects about the inaccessibility of medical care for the elderly in order to save young people, about limiting the hospitalizations of elderly people with a serious illness, which requires mechanical ventilation with a shortage of ventilators and hospitals that can provide oxygenation. The debate over euthanasia revolves around the following issues: people have the right to self-determination and independent choice of destiny; helping the sick people to die may be a better choice than suffering; the difference between active and passive euthanasia is insignificant; permission for euthanasia does not necessarily lead to adverse consequences. Disputes often take place at the ethical or religious level. Opponents of euthanasia defend the right for life under any circumstances, and the adoption of the law expands the cohort of patients with euthanasia and hope for life. Keywords: euthanasia, death, life, consciousness, stroke.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.766
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES OF UKRAINESame topicEducation and Social Development in UkraineFrench-language works237,207