Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter summarises the book, focusing on our analyses of ethical challenges based upon the three core ethical perspectives we presented in Chapter 1: moralist, libertarian and relativist. The moralists, who contend that suicide is always unacceptable and must be prevented, have occupied the mainstream position through a long period of history. Attacks on the moralistic point of view were highlighted in the twentieth century by the libertarian writings of such anti-psychiatrists as Szasz, who argued that all suicide prevention should be abandoned, and thereafter by more philosophical critics such as Foucault. Today, relativist approaches often predominate, where some people are seen as needing suicide prevention and with others, their wanting to die is ignored or facilitated, as in the case of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), euthanasia and assisted suicide. Suicide prevention should be seen as a central issue that has to be assessed alongside the anti-paternalism promotion of freedom of choice. The concern of this book has not been to find a middle ground. We have sought a social and moral conscience that mandates a duty to respond to suicide and the desire to end life prematurely, first and foremost, by responding to cries for help, rather than to a clarion call for freedom
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.037 |
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".