MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411574515 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2025.1589426

Exploring multiple levels of suffering and suicide prevention in an era of emerging national legislations

2025· article· en· W4411574515 on OpenAlexaff
Mark J. Goldblatt, Dolores Angela Castelli Dransart, Sylvie Lapierre, Margda Wærn, Reinhard Lindner

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Public Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresInnovation and Economic Development Trois Rivières
FundersForskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och VälfärdVetenskapsrådet
KeywordsPsychosocialAssisted suicideDistressExistentialismInterpersonal communicationSuicide preventionPsychologyMedicinePsychotherapistPsychiatryPoison controlPolitical scienceMedical emergencySocial psychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Access to assisted dying (variously called assisted suicide, euthanasia, and medical aid/assistance in dying) is increasingly available in many countries around the world. Individual suffering in the present and fears for the future, feature prominently in the request for assisted dying, which then affects many people beyond the identified individual, including family and loved ones, the clinical team associated with the dying process and societies. We consider expanding waves of distress, beginning with the subjective intrapsychic suffering of the individual requesting assistance in dying, the interpersonal effect on survivors, and the complex responses in those facing requests for assisted death. The autonomous rights of the individual to the alleviation of suffering are balanced by efforts toward suicide prevention, which are impacted when there are limited options to alleviate the psychosocial and existential suffering of those who express the wish to die.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.023
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.205
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Public HealthSame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207