MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6942637059 · doi:10.14288/1.0364701

Medical assistance in dying: the role of the nurse practitioner

2018· article· en· W6942637059 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationCompensation (psychology)Nurse practitionersCritical appraisalMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) is the Canadian response to the enduring debate over euthanasia. Canada is the first country to permit Nurse Practitioners (NPs) to provide these services. This culminating project addressed the problem of limited overall knowledge of MAiD and provided evidence-based arguments for the increased role and need of NPs providing MAiD services. A scoping literature review was completed, and results were evaluated utilizing the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. Results provided an overview of the historical, legal and procedural related background of MAiD. Despite thousands of years of legal, medical, philosophical, and theological deliberations, euthanasia remains a controversial and unresolved concept. An objective outline on the main contentious ethical issues such as mental illness, mature minors, contentious objection and advanced directives was provided. Barriers were looked at such as geography and compensation for MAiD, alongside accompanied solutions. Procedural details were summarised including documentation and medications. Lastly, the role of nurse practitioners was discussed providing evidence that their skills and knowledge suits the provision of MAiD services.

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)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.197

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.003
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.169
Teacher spread0.164 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions→French-language works237,207→