What If Deliberately Dying Is an Occupation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In some legal and societal circumstances, people freely and capably plan, organize, and precipitate their own death. Drawing on published literature, we critically reflect on how deliberately ending one's own life fits with the current definitions of the concept of occupation. Using an occupational science and occupational therapy theoretical reflection, we argue that deliberately dying can for some people be considered a purposeful and meaningful occupation. Implications for such an occupational therapy practice are discussed: attending to the occupational needs of specific groups of people, reconsidering definitions and conceptual work, advocating for occupational justice in ending life activities, reflecting on ethical conundrums around self-harm activities within the scope of practice, and exploring deliberate death as a purposeful and meaningful occupation. Because deliberately dying is something that some people do, in this article we aim to open a dialogue within the field of occupational science and occupational therapy about this sensitive and potentially controversial issue.
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 | 0.015 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".