MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416736900 · doi:10.1080/20502877.2025.2593200

Slippery slopes down under: the progressive loosening of requirements for voluntary assisted dying in Australia and New Zealand

2025· article· en· W4416736900 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Albert Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueThe New Bioethics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and cultural studies analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationSlippery slopeConstitutionState (computer science)Administration (probate law)Northern territoryProject commissioning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between November 2017 and June 2024 eight jurisdictions in Australia and New Zealand passed laws to legalise some form of euthanasia and/or assisted suicide. Like the United States, Australia has a federal constitution and 'voluntary assisted dying' (VAD) in Australia has been legalised at the state level. However, unlike the United States, Australia and New Zealand both permit practitioner administration of the lethal drug (euthanasia) as well as self-administration (assisted suicide). Another difference is that physician-assisted suicide, at first, spread very slowly in the United States, and new laws were based closely on the requirements of the original legislation in Oregon. In contrast, in Australia and New Zealand, the spread of VAD has been rapid from the outset, and there is a discernible pattern of successive weakening of safeguards in more recent legislation. The Australian model has increasingly come to resemble that of Canada.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
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 score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe New BioethicsSame topicLegal and cultural studies analysisFrench-language works237,207