Representations of Cloning in the Public Sphere
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This poster was presented at the at Genome Canada G[E.sup.3]LS Winter Symposium in Montreal, February 6-8. 2003. Research Question What are the social representations of cloning risks and benefits? Methodology Focus groups: In order to explore social representations in public perception, three focus groups were held in January 2003. The focus groups were composed of randomly recruited members of the general public from Calgary, Alberta. Content Analysis In order to investigate social representations in the media, Globe and Mail articles about cloning were coded and analysed from 1997, when Dolly was cloned, through to 2001. Conclusions Social Representations of Body Part Cloning The Globe and Mail articles and the focus group participants shared the same hopes for body part cloning, but they differed regarding concerns. Social Representations of Animal Cloning Both the Globe and Mail articles and the focus group participants recognized that there are both benefits and risks for animal cloning. They identified very different sets of benefits and risks. However, both agreed that cloning endangered/extinct animals would be a benefit and that genetic defects would be a risk. Social Representations of Human Cloning The Globe and Mail presented a balanced picture of the risks and benefits associated with human cloning, but the focus group participants clearly had limited hopes for this type of cloning--they saw it as mad science. Focus Group Findings Body Part Cloning Animal Cloning Human Cloning HOPES HOPES HOPES The public identified Participants' main Participants made it two key hopes for body categories of hopes very clear that they part cloning: for animal cloning had no hopes for included: human cloning: * Increase in organs don't think this available for trans- * Expansion of scien- group is really plants. tific/medical know- hoping for human ledge. cloning. I might be * Curing diseases, generalizing, but such as Alzheimer's * Perfecting cloning nobody put human and Parkinson's. technique on animals cloning down as a before it is used on hope. humans. * Bringing endangered/ extinct species back to life. CONCERNS CONCERNS CONCERNS At first participants The two major concerns Participants had a said they had no raised were: lot of anxiety about concerns about body human cloning. They part cloning. However, * Genetic defects in identified seven main after a couple of cloned animals. categories of minutes of brain- concern: storming, the groups * Impact of cloned generated three main animals on the * Use of human categories of environment. cloning for evil concerns: purposes. * The process of body * Inhumane treatment part cloning. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle