MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313240865 · doi:10.1080/07481187.2022.2160033

Qualities of the dying experience of persons who access medical assistance in dying: A scoping review

2022· review· en· W4313240865 on OpenAlexaff
Tyler B. Martin, Shannon Freeman, Nasreen Lalani, Davina Banner

Bibliographic record

VenueDeath Studies · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGerontologyMedicinePsychologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Defining a "good death" is complex and grounded in diverse cultural, social, and personal factors. Although there is a significant body of literature exploring the broad concepts of death and dying, there is a dearth in literature that has explored what constitutes a good death for persons undergoing assisted dying such as Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD). In this scoping review of 19 articles, we explore dying experiences and what a good death entails for people accessing MAiD. Understanding personal values and ideas about positive dying experiences can guide patients, care partners, and clinicians in their preparation toward, and facilitation of, a good death experience particularly among persons who access MAiD.

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)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score0.714

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.656
GPT teacher head0.611
Teacher spread0.044 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDeath StudiesSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207