MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4287225969 · doi:10.1177/26323524221112170

Voluntary stopping of eating and drinking in the age of medical assistance in dying: ethical considerations for physicians

2022· review· en· W4287225969 on OpenAlexaffabout
Peter Allatt, Daniel D.M. Kim, P. C. Hebert

Bibliographic record

VenuePalliative Care and Social Practice · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurnoverPsychologyMedicineEnvironmental healthFamily medicineManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 2016, when medical assistance in dying (MAiD) became legal in Canada, healthcare professionals (HCPs) have become familiar with exploring and acting upon patients' wishes to hasten death (WTHD). In contrast to MAiD, the literature on the voluntary stopping of eating and drinking (VSED) is very limited and there are no standards of practice or legal guidance to support HCPs. In this article, the legal and ethical literature as regards VSED is critically reviewed and new standards of practice are proposed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.768
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.344
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalliative Care and Social PracticeSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207