Az önrendelkezési jog és az életvégi döntések jogdogmatikájának nemzetközi összehasonlítása
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper aims to compare the international legal doctrine of self-determination and end-of-life decisions.The introductory reflections introduce the issues surrounding the concept of end-of-life decisions in the context of human dignity and death with dignity.The study then attempts to clarify the definition of end-of-life decisions, euthanasia, assisted suicide and refusal of treatment.The following chapter of the study will focus on the Hungarian regulation of end-of-life decisions, with special reference to the two 'euthanasia decisions' of the Hungarian Constitutional Court.In addition, recent German, Dutch and Canadian court decisions will be analysed, focusing on the different legal institutions covered by end-of-life decisions and the legal guarantees provided by the respective legal systems.The paper concludes by comparing the Hungarian and the international cases.Finally, the paper briefly reflects on the pending case Karsai v. Hungary before the ECtHR at the time of closing the manuscript.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.012 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".