MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ending Life

2025· book-chapter· en· W7124833118 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jonathan Herring

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2025
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPatient Dignity and Privacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatuteSlippery slopeJurisprudenceStatute of limitationsStatutory lawLegislation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter explores the legal regulation around the ending of life. It discusses the law relating to murder and suicide, before focusing particularly on the legal regulation of euthanasia and assisted suicide. The chapter sets out the current law, both in statute and in case law, before exploring the ethical debates surrounding it, including the concepts of autonomy, sanctity of life, and dignity. It considers the lessons to be learned from other jurisdictions, such as the Netherlands, Oregon, and Canada, with reference to the slippery slopes argument, and the debates around how the law could be reformed.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.017

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designNot applicable
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 venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicPatient Dignity and PrivacyFrench-language works237,207