MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400178397 · doi:10.1080/07481187.2024.2369380

Response to Lyon: Oranges, apples and polarizing polemic

2024· letter· en· W4400178397 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Bruce, Rosanne Beuthin

Bibliographic record

VenueDeath Studies · 2024
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we respond to the commentary, Human misconnection? A response to Beuthin and Bruce on Medical Assistance in Dying providers' lived experience, by C. Lyon. While spirited and respectful debate of topics of interest to society are important, we illustrate how Lyon offers a polarizing reaction to findings with which he simply does not agree. We surface how Lyon ignores the methodological context underpinning the interpretive findings of the original study. In so doing, he violates an important tenet of scholarly critique and renders his claims and motivation questionable. We argue that Lyon's commentary is an opinion piece disguised as scholarly critique that will limit thoughtful conversation about assisted dying that might otherwise engage and generate new understandings across difference.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.341
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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDeath StudiesSame topicHistorical and Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207