S. Aurenche (Éd.). La mort devant soi. Euthanasie, des clés pour un débat. Paris: Éditions Autrement, 2003.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Published by é ditions Autrement under the direction of Sophie Aurenche, this book examines euthanasia as a current subject of discussion in France. The January 2000 decision rendered by the Comité consultative national d'éthique (CCNE) accepting euthanasia in extenuating circumstances, and the passing of the March 2002 law on the rights of patients, including the right to a dignified death, have reopened the debate on the subject of euthanasia. No longer discussed only in the back rooms of the hospital or among those practising within the ethical and juridical spheres, euthanasia has emerged into the public domain. Journalist Sophie Aurenche has facilitated the debate by giving voice to speakers from a number of disciplines; each brings expertise and knowledge to the discussion and each examines the following question: is euthanasia a humanist duty or an inhumane practice? In the first section of the book, the texts address the question based on the meaning of the term euthanasia and its related concepts. The second half is dedicated to testimonies and reflections on the experience and practice of euthanasia. This book is a must for those interested in the study and repercussions of euthanasia and palliative care. The studies brought together in this volume as well as the realities they describe should be consulted in any future research on possible solutions envisioned on the issue 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.031 |
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".