Bibliographic record
Abstract
"‘Should assisted dying be legal?’ is a question that has been and continues to be actively discussed throughout the Western world, leading several countries to change their laws in recent years. This anthology provides a thorough introduction to the question from a Nordic perspective. Contributing authors from Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland present the legal frameworks, practices and debates unique to each country. The book gives a broad overview of the issue and also conveys research and experiences from the Netherlands, the United States and Canada. The book has a clear tenor – in the form of a critical stance toward legalization. The primary emphasis is on arguments against legalization, although arguments in favor of legalization are also examined. An objective with this book is to advance the public exchange of opinion, and the authors put forth suggestions for common terminology and identify different tracks in the debate. Assisted Dying in the Nordic Countries? Ethics, Experience and Politics is an important book for those who wish to immerse themselves deeply in the question of assisted dying and the debate on legalization. The book is written for a broad audience, but will be particularly relevant for healthcare workers, students in medicine, other health-related fields and ethics, as well as politicians and journalists. The authors have varied backgrounds within medicine, philosophy, medical ethics, theology and linguistics, and they elucidate the question for a variety of professional and personal perspectives."
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.686 | 0.782 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".