MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413465295 · doi:10.29173/mlj1397

Morbid Matters: Medical Assistance in Dying in Federal Corrections

2025· article· en· W4413465295 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
James Gacek, Richard Jochelson, Brandon Trask, Lauren Corcoran, Marisa Ranieri

Bibliographic record

VenueManitoba Law Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An ongoing problem of federal prisons in Canada continues to be deaths in custody. While prison suicides (i.e., dying by unnatural causes) and aging in prison (i.e., dying by natural causes) remain significant challenges, the legalization and introduction of medical assistance in dying (MAiD) raises policy and operational challenges for federally sentenced and/or terminally ill prisoners. Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) policy now allows for an external provider to end the life of a prisoner, contingent upon exceptional circumstances. Beyond the optics of enabling or facilitating inmate deaths via state agency, there are greater moral, ethical and practical considerations that must be discussed. This article explores the state and challenges of carrying out MAiD in relation to penitentiary settings. As the findings suggest, the arrival of MAiD has prompted an expansion of ideas of what constitutes fostering life or marking for death, and the relationship between the pair.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.548
Threshold uncertainty score0.898

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManitoba Law Journal→Same topicHealthcare Policy and Management→French-language works237,207→