MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415819539 · doi:10.7202/1121334ar

Why Track 2 MAiD is Discriminatory

2025· article· en· W4415819539 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Isabel Grant

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Bioethics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisadvantagedAbleismFraming (construction)InequalityTrack (disk drive)Prejudice (legal term)Intersection (aeronautics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper argues that Canada’s Track 2 Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) regime is discriminatory against people with disabilities, and has a disproportionate impact on women with disabilities. It is important to expose critical gaps in pro-MAiD advocacy, which obscures how systemic marginalization shapes access to assisted death. Premised on a medical model of disability which exceptionalizes disability-related suffering as uniquely intolerable, Track 2 MAiD poses heightened risks for those already disadvantaged by structural inequalities. By framing death as a medical treatment, the law reinforces ableist assumptions that portray people with disabilities as better off dead instead of providing access to essential supports. These social inequalities are heightened for disabled women who experience alarming rates of male violence, the intersection of medical ableism and sexism, as well as the assumption that women should be caregivers and not those needing care.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BioethicsSame topicElder Abuse and NeglectFrench-language works237,207