MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401687691 · doi:10.7202/1112289ar

Ethical Implications of End-Of-Life Decisions

2024· article· en· W4401687691 on OpenAlex
Elisheva Tamar Anne Nemetz, Ryan S. Huang

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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Bioethics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsCollege of Physicians and Surgeons of OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnd-of-life careMEDLINEMedicineNursingPolitical sciencePalliative care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the recent policy update by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), which allows physicians to override patient wishes for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) without consent. It critically analyzes the ethical implications of this shift, emphasizing the juxtaposition between the legal protections for patient’s Last Wills and the relatively diminished safeguarding of their end-of-life care preferences. The paper highlights the potential for bias in physician decision-making, the risk of reverting to a more paternalistic healthcare model, and the challenge of balancing patient autonomy with medical authority. The study underscores the need for a nuanced approach to healthcare policy that respects patient autonomy while addressing the complexities of end-of-life decisions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.749
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.313
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.168 · 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