MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410202745 · doi:10.7202/1117878ar

No Loitering: A Response to Disha et al. on Medical Assistance in Dying’s 90-day Assessment Period

2025· article· en· W4410202745 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Christopher J. Lyon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Bioethics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutopsy Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeriod (music)MedicineArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disha et al., in their 2023 paper in this journal, interchangeably frame the Canadian Criminal Code’s 90-day assessment period safeguard for Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) for people without a foreseeable natural death (Track 2) as a “waiting”, “reflection”, and “assessment” period. However, the law and formal guidance explicitly describe its purpose as an assessment period, only incidentally a reflection period, but not a waiting period. Accordingly, there is an urgent ethical, practical, and legal need to ensure MAID practitioners, their colleagues, and overseers rigorously understand and apply the law to protect patients’ lives from transgressions and stop transgressors.

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)0.004
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.359 · 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
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BioethicsSame topicAutopsy Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207