MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409826429 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2025.27478

Advance Requests for Medical Assistance in Dying in the International Context: Some Legal Issues for the Canadian Case

2025· article· en· W4409826429 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Luis Espericueta

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Political scienceLawPsychologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An advance request for medical assistance in dying (MAiD) (ARM) is a document that allows individuals to request euthanasia if they lose their decision-making capacity. Currently, it is available in all countries where MAiD is permitted for individuals suffering from a serious and incurable illness whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable, except in Canada. In this country, various citizen and parliamentary initiatives are considering the inclusion of this document in national legislation. This article presents for the first time a compilation of all ARM regulations worldwide. Analysis of the international framework suggests that the requirements for drafting an ARM could influence the effective implementation of patients' wishes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.412 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare policySame topicConflict of Laws and JurisdictionFrench-language works237,207