Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Montreal conference (2012) adopted the definition of death as „permanent loss of conscious- ness and permanent loss of all brainstem functions”. This definition aspires to cover with its scope all types of death that could be reduced to this definition as a phenomenon. This definition is based on the assumptions contained in the Harvard Report of 1968, which defined death as an irreversible coma. This approach to death has been criticized by some doctors, philosophers, theologians, lawyers, journalists and religious circles. In most countries, these protests were ignored by state legislation and the influential media, resulting in no apparent social opposition to the neurological criteria for death and the later introduced cardiac death criteria. In some countries, however, the legislation provides for the possibility of objecting to these death criteria, which allows them to be avoided for declaring death by anyone who disagrees with them. Japan and the state of New Jersey in the United States have developed statutory solutions for this purpose that could be an example for other countries. Meanwhile, this is not the case and the societies of most countries in the world have in effect imposed definitions and criteria of death with which 20–40% or even more citizens do not agree. This undermines their civil rights and therefore needs to be changed, especially since there is a desire for further legal changes that would legalize consent to death by organ donation (death by organ donation). This in turn would mean an open questioning of the principle that we do not kill some patients in order to save others, and the mission of doctors is only to heal patients, not to kill them.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.008 |
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".