Between medicine, humanities and the law: compiling a living archive of assisted dying
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stories about personal experiences of assisted dying, a term comprising both instances when a lethal substance is administered by a physician or by the patient themselves, are frequently cited in law-making processes. These experiences of healthcare systems and the laws governing end-of-life procedures thereby interactively influence the future of medicine at the deathbed. With more countries legalising some form of assisted dying or opening political debate about the issue, addressing how these personal stories shape public opinions and social institutions is timely. In this current controversy, we question how medical humanities researchers are to make sense of the role of these stories in law-making, and critically reflect on a digital archive that seeks to make these interconnections visible. At the methodological level, the reciprocal interactions in assisted dying between medicine, law and the arts urges us to reconsider the conceptual foundations of interdisciplinary research in the medical humanities.
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 | 0.014 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".