Bibliographic record
Abstract
The central objective of this study is the elicitation of the lived experience of individuals surrounding medically-assisted dying (MAiD) in Canada. An introductory analysis of the current place of MAiD in Canada forms the philosophical basis for the contribution of individual participants. Participants considered their experiencing of the 2016 introduction to medical assistance in dying in Canada, considered how that experience evolved over the subsequent three to four years, and considered the experiential impact of medically-assisted dying at the level of meaning, belief, or spirituality. Three groupings of participants are included: medical professionals; those who provide care for the bereaved; and community actors. Participants from within each of the three groupings went on to consider their singular experience. This study contributes to understanding, through these early experiences of the new MAiD regime in Canada, the ethics surrounding dying in the first quarter of the 21st century. How does Canadian society now assign value to life? Not merely the exclusive purview of elderly patients in rapid decline, the new way of dying through MAiD informs our living together throughout the lifespan. Delineating gradations of acceptance of assisted dying enhances the status-based rights foundation for ongoing dialogue concerning MAiD in Canada and beyond. The aim of capturing the essence of participants’ lived experience before the five-year governmental review superseded the desire to build a larger sample, with more comprehensive representation. Despite a modest sample, the study provides a broad range of experiences rather than highlighting one specific group’s involvement with MAiD. Far from providing a clearly defined dichotomous break down, various nuances of the ethics surrounding MAiD’s application were discerned and form the basis for ongoing dialogue, identifying changing values, and future public policy development.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".