L’assistance à mourir par-delà les frontières : l’influence de la circulation transnationale des personnes, des termes et des thèmes sur la construction d’un problème public
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’assistance à mourir est désormais un sujet débattu, ainsi qu’une pratique légale, dans plusieurs juridictions à travers le monde. Le présent article porte sur les personnes, les termes et les thèmes qui circulent entre des contextes où l’assistance à mourir est autorisée. À partir des concepts de « jugement », de « propriété » et de « responsabilité » développés par Gusfield, nous explorons comment les débats nationaux sur l’assistance à mourir sont alimentés par des mouvements transnationaux de circulation qui contribuent à la construction d’un problème public. L’adoption d’une approche transnationale montre que les problèmes publics locaux relatifs à l’assistance à mourir ne doivent pas être appréhendés de manière isolée, ni comparés comme s’ils s’inscrivaient dans des contextes indépendants les uns des autres.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".