MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396676555 · doi:10.1192/bjb.2024.23

Assisted death for prisoners and forensic patients: complexity and controversy illustrated by four recent cases

2024· review· en· W4396676555 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueBJPsych Bulletin · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquivalence (formal languages)Ethical issuesMental healthcareEconomic JusticeForensic sciencePsychiatryMental healthCriminologyPsychologyLawMedicinePolitical scienceEngineering ethicsEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical assistance in dying (MAiD) (which includes euthanasia and assisted suicide) is available in an increasing number of countries. In Belgium, The Netherlands and Switzerland (and was due to be implemented in Canada from 2024) eligibility includes mental suffering in the absence of any physical disorder. There are particular ethical and legal issues when considering MAiD for those involuntarily detained in prisons and hospitals. We describe four recent cases that illustrate these complexities, and highlight issues of equivalence of healthcare and self-determination against concerns about the criteria for determining eligibility of those with non-terminal conditions as well as the objections raised by victims and families and the demands for justice.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.584
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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 head0.352
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.111 · 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