Talking About Dying Won't Kill You: Should We Have a Choice at the End of Life? (Part 2 Q&A)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It's a topic we're really not comfortable discussing, but it's just not going away. With a constitutional court challenge in BC and legislation pending in Quebec, the question of whether Canadians should be able to choose medical help to die when they are at the end of life is one of the most significant civil rights issues of our time.The speaker will be addressing this issue from a variety of perspectives including the language of the debate, the logic of the arguments, the legal principles at stake, the evidence from experience and the impact on those working with the sick and dying. Speaker: Wanda MorrisWanda Morris is Executive Director of Dying With Dignity. She has been involved in the right to die movement for many years, including making a submission to the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care and acting as a witness in the recent Gloria Taylor case in BC. Ms. Morris is a Chartered Accountant, a former member of the Canadian Association of Professional Speakers and holds a Master of Arts Degree in Transforming Spirituality.Dying With Dignity (DWD) is a national charity with over 2400 members and supporters and a 30 year history of improving quality of dying. DWD supports those who want a gentle death by informing them of their rights and options, and expanding their end-of-life choices.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.322 | 0.013 |
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".