MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382894368 · doi:10.5694/mja2.52016

Feasibility of organ donation following voluntary assisted dying in Australia: lessons from international practice

2023· article· en· W4382894368 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jan Bollen, Courtney Hempton, Neera Bhatia, James Tibballs

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Medical Journal of Australia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrgan donationMedicineTurnoverDonationIntensive care medicineSurgeryTransplantationPolitical scienceLawManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hypothetical case scenarioA 57-year-old woman suffers from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis with an estimated prognosis of six months.She has a son who received an organ transplant a few years ago and is now able to continue a healthy life.The woman has requested voluntary assisted dying but would also like to donate her organs when she dies.She presents her proposal to her physician.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.225
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Medical Journal of AustraliaSame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207