MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323657510 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2023.27035

How Engaged in Legal Planning for Incapacity and Death Are Canadians? A Mixed-Methods Survey

2023· article· en· W4323657510 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ariane Plaisance, Jessie Stilson, Aurore Benadiba, Daren K. Heyland

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalQueen's UniversityLethbridge CollegeUniversity of LethbridgeUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlan (archaeology)Public relationsPsychologyPolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: This study aimed to measure the level of involvement of Canadians in preparing for incapacity and death and to explore facilitators and barriers. Method: The authors used an online survey based on the social cognitive theory and the Stages of Change model. Result: One-hundred and forty-eight participants took part. The main facilitators were avoiding burdening others and reducing conflicts. Some respondents thought legal planning did not apply to young and healthy people. Some did not trust lawyers. Conclusion: The authors suggest that more people would trust lawyers if they knew the limits of legal documents and if they worked with medical experts.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.579
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.268
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare policySame topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207