The law and practice associated with advance directives in Canada and Australia: similarities, differences and debates.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is a summary of research that investigated the Canadian and Australian legislative framework associated with advance directives in health care. The research focused on the context in which older people are encouraged to use advance directives. These are directions about refusal of medical treatment given in advance of incompetence. An advance directive may be given in a written document (living will) expressing one's wishes, by appointing another person (proxy) to make the decisions, or as a combination of the two. A lack of consistency and clarity about the terminology was found in both countries. This could be a barrier for older people to express their wishes in advance. Several confusing issues were also identified with the legislation related to advance directives. There appears to be a move towards appointing a substitute decision-maker, but with significant differences across the Australian States and in Canadian Provinces. The "conversation" about future decisions emerged as an important theme, together with an emphasis on the process of "advance care planning" replacing the focus on advance directive forms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".