MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7114123696

Il suicidio come scelta accettabile da parte dell'individuo

2025· book· it· W7114123696 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · 2025
Typebook
Languageit
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicItalian Social Issues and Migration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoison controlPublic healthDeontological ethics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La tesi affronta il suicidio e il suicidio assistito come espressioni della libertà individuale, mettendo in discussione i pregiudizi e i tabù che ancora circondano questi temi nello spazio pubblico. Attraverso un approccio interdisciplinare che integra filosofia morale, filosofia politica, bioetica e sociologia, vengono analizzati i modelli normativi e legislativi adottati in diversi Paesi, con particolare attenzione a Svizzera, Olanda, Belgio e Canada. Il caso italiano di DJ Fabo costituisce un punto di osservazione privilegiato per comprendere le tensioni tra autodeterminazione personale e proibizionismo statale. Il lavoro mette a confronto la prospettiva liberale di John Stuart Mill e l’analisi sociologica di Émile Durkheim per mostrare come il suicidio possa essere interpretato sia come scelta individuale sia come fenomeno sociale. L’obiettivo è valutare se una società democratica possa riconoscere, in condizioni determinate e tutelate, il suicidio come un diritto e riportare al centro del dibattito etico e politico un tema spesso rimosso, nella convinzione che solo una discussione aperta e informata possa favorire un reale progresso bioetico.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 venuePhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation)Same topicItalian Social Issues and MigrationFrench-language works237,207