MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406021453 · doi:10.1080/07481187.2024.2375831

Misrepresentation: A final response to Bruce and Beuthin on Medical Assistance in Dying

2025· article· en· W4406021453 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christopher J. Lyon

Bibliographic record

VenueDeath Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScrutinyMisrepresentationPsychologyLawPsychoanalysisSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A final comment in this four-part exchange with A Bruce and R Beuthin addresses several inaccuracies and problematic omissions in their 'Response to Lyon: Oranges, apples and polarizing polemic.' I point out that court rulings mean that it is likely some form of assisted suicide or euthanasia (Medical Assistance in Dying or MAID) remains lawful in Canada, and I argue from this view. I further suggest that scholars writing about MAID clinicians' lived experiences must be transparent about their involvement in the practice to conform to methodological and ethical standards. Finally, I stress that the intense emotional rewards obtained by providers from ending lives may be horrifying to observers and those potentially eligible for MAID, and must be open to critical scrutiny.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.269
GPT teacher head0.528
Teacher spread0.259 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDeath StudiesSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207