MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362475470 · doi:10.3917/jibes.333.0095

Chapitre 7. Les enjeux de l’aide médicale à mourir en contexte de sclérose latérale amyotrophique : une revue de la littérature

2023· review· fr· W4362475470 on OpenAlex
Caroline Favron‐Godbout, Éric Racine

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal international de bioéthique et d'éthique des sciences · 2023
Typereview
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Clinical Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is an incurable neurodegenerative disease that leads some people with the disease to consider medical assistance in dying (MAiD). In this article, we describe how a variety of moral problems can emerge from this particular context and affect the well-being of people with ALS, their loved ones, and their caregivers. As MAiD is framed by specific eligibility criteria, broadening its eligibility is often proposed to address these issues. This critical review of the literature aims to identify moral issues relating to ALS that may persist or arise in the event of such widening. The MEDLINE, EMBASE CINAHL and Web of Science databases were searched using 4 search combinations to capture insights from existing literature on ethics, MAiD and ALS (N=41). A thematic content analysis highlighted 3 contextual categories where moral issues emerge (the experience of the disease, the choice of how to die, and the implementation of MAiD). Two important observations are discussed: 1) there are differences in perspective between stakeholders, which can lead to disagreement, but some similarities of perspective also exist; 2) the widening of MAiD eligibility mainly concerns moral issues related to the choice of how to die, and thus constitutes a partial solution to the problems identified.

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.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.465
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0030.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.284 · 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