Bibliographic record
Abstract
<JATS1:p>Dignity is seen, commonly, as an ethical obligation owed to human persons. The dimensions of this obligation are subject to wide discussion and defy universal agreement. Dignity is seen, commonly, as an ethical obligation owed to human persons. Dignity as a Human Right? examines dignity within the prism of death, and more particularly, its humane and dignified management. Although there is no domestic or international right to die with dignity, within the right to life should, arguably, be a right to dignity and self-determination especially at its end-stage; for, a powerful interface exists between the right to human dignity and the very right to life, to love and humanity as well as compassion at its conclusion. Legislative efforts--nationally and internationally--have begun to recognize a right to die with dignity when a condition of medical futility exists. There are presently five states and the District of Columbia, together with a judicial interpretation from the Montana Supreme Court, which recognize death assistance for the terminally ill. Internationally, Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland are seen as leaders in this recognition. The United Nations has played a significant role in framing end-of-life decision making within the ambit of human rights protection. The UN Charter states unequivocally that the dignity and worth of the human person must be protected and safeguarded. Similarly, among other instruments, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights acknowledges that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.</JATS1:p>
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.020 |
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".