MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393114495 · doi:10.35493/medu.44.22

Ongoing Debate on Medically-Assisted Death in Canada

2023· article· en· W4393114495 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ruhani Khattra, Olivia Kim, Jia Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Meducator · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutopsy Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoryPolitical scienceMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2016, Canada introduced Bill C-14, the Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) Act, providing an end-of-life care option for a rapidly increasing number of Canadians. MAiD includes active and passive methods, known as voluntary euthanasia – administered by a designated medical professional – and assisted suicide – the provision of medication by a medical professional to self-administer. The House of Commons and Senate passed Bill C-14 following The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Carter v Canada. This case challenged the prohibition of physician-assisted death, decreeing it an infringement on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.276 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe MeducatorSame topicAutopsy Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207