MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413304083 · doi:10.1057/s41292-025-00365-2

The nearness of the state: substitution practices at the ragged ends of life in the U.S

2025· article· en· W4413304083 on OpenAlexaff
Janelle S. Taylor, Elizabeth K. Vig

Bibliographic record

VenueBioSocieties · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersHealth Services Research and DevelopmentFetzer InstituteU.S. Department of Veterans AffairsJohn A. Hartford FoundationNational Institute on AgingHartford Foundation for Public Giving
KeywordsSubstitution (logic)Diathesis–stress modelDopamine hypothesis of schizophreniaPsychologyMedical tourismState (computer science)PsychoanalysisPsychiatryPhilosophyHistoryComputer scienceNeuroscienceLinguisticsArchaeologyTourismAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay examines two stories emerging from two different research projects, both based in Seattle, Washington (U.S.): one woman's story of her efforts to implement her husband's wishes following a stroke, and another woman's story of a failed suicide attempt by her dear friend who had been diagnosed with early-onset Alzheimer's disease. We first consider these stories in relation to the concept of substituted judgment implicit in the influential discourse of advance care planning (ACP). We then consider them in light of the concepts of 'substitution practices' and 'nearness' as developed by Mette Nordahl Svendsen. We contend that these concepts open valuable new perspectives and questions about medical decision-making and care in situations of grave impairment in late life. In particular, they help direct attention to the nearness of the state at the ragged ends of life, and indeed allow the situation of vulnerable and gravely impaired individuals to serve as a window onto what 'the state' is understood to be and do.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0210.036
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioSocietiesSame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207