MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312787179 · doi:10.22374/cjgim.v17i2.586

The Expansion of Medical Assistance in Dying in the COVID-19 Pandemic Era and Beyond

2022· article· en· W4312787179 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Sera Whitelaw, Trudo Lemmens, Harriette G.C. Van Spall

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of General Internal Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research InstituteSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoImpactMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsTribunalParliamentCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)LawPolitical scienceEconomic JusticePandemicGovernment (linguistics)Equity (law)HumanitiesMedicinePoliticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2015, the Canadian parliament passed a law permitting adults to request Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) when they have a grievous, irremediable medical condition that causes unbearable suffering and their natural death is reasonably foreseeable. Following a constitutional challenge, a Quebec lower court, ruled in the Truchon vs. Canada AG case that the restriction to a reasonably foreseeable death is an unjustifiable impingement on the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right to equality. In response, the government expanded the MAiD law in March 2021 through Bill C-7 to include those who are not approaching their natural death. Bill C-7 is a potentially harmful approach to justice for vulnerable groups such as the elderly, disabled, or those with chronic illnesses. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted serious problems with how we care for the vulnerable members of our society. In this article, we explore what has gone wrong and what has raised serious concerns, while proposing potential options to consider when developing new laws, systems, and processes to improve societal equity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.285
Threshold uncertainty score0.573

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.023
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0110.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of General Internal MedicineSame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207