Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the September‐October 2024 issue of the Hastings Center Report , two pieces examine attitudes toward and policy on medical aid in dying (MAID). An essay by Anna Elsner and colleagues analyzes terminology, including euphemistic language, used in Canada and other countries to refer to this practice. The authors recommend explicit public discussion of the values at stake in the use of this terminology. An article by Em Walsh concerns a subset of people who could become eligible for MAID under Canada's proposed expansion of eligibility for this assistance: people suffering from poverty‐induced depression. Cautioning that the expansion of PAD could exacerbate inequality, Walsh offers six recommendations for policy‐makers’ consideration. The issue's lead article, by Eric Juengst and colleagues, focuses on governance issues that could be raised by human genome editing research that aims to strengthen individuals’ resistance to disease beyond what is regarded as the human functional range. Juengst et al. identify and analyze three potential principles that could help policy‐makers navigate what can be a blurry line between goals of prevention and enhancement in human genome editing research.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".