MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W335258468

Novel Platforms for Genetic Analysis: An Assessment of Rapid, Portable Diagnostic Devices

2008· article· en· W335258468 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Minesh P. Mehta

Notice bibliographique

RevueHealth law review · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueClimate Change Communication and Perception
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPublic relationsScientific consensusConsensus conferencePolitical scienceDemocracyUpstream (networking)SociologyLawComputer scienceTelecommunications
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Pioneered simultaneously in Denmark and the United States in the early 1990s, consensus conferencing is a relatively new tool for consulting the public on a wide range of issues. A consensus conference involves members of the lay public and gives them the central role in assessing a problem area. Participants rarely have subject expertise that is directly relevant to the topic being explored and contribute by making their views known in the form of concerns, values, and everyday experiences. The underlying purpose of a consensus conference is to provide a means by which ordinary (lay) members of society can be involved in a purposeful way in making their views known to regulators, industrial actors, scientists, and politicians. Consensus conferencing often involves an examination of science and issues and is seen as a way to reinvigorate democratic decision making by including the public upstream in the development of science and technology, rather than after-the-fact. Additionally, it is a tool for building trust and for creating a more open and transparent dialogue. In Canada, consensus conferencing has been used previously to explore topics like genetically modified foods, plant molecular farming, and blood safety. Other countries have used consensus conferencing on topics like nanotechnology (USA), telecommunications and teleworking (USA and Denmark), national electricity policy (Switzerland), and radioactive waste management (UK). Consensus conferencing is about building consensus. Since consensus refers to agreement, the results of a consensus conference are a record of group decisions, and represent positions and recommendations that participants can live with. It is therefore fundamental to the success of a consensus conference that the process for getting to a certain degree of general agreement occurs in an environment which promotes inclusivity, participation, cooperation, egalitarianism, and a willingness to be solution oriented. The purpose of a consensus conference is to produce an informed debate on a limited subject and to produce statements and recommendations that reflect the nature of the deliberations. As such, this document reflects the views of 22 adult Canadians from coast-to-coast, and across all age ranges. Participants were selected in one of three ways: (1) responses from a series of advertisements in the Globe and Mail newspaper, (2) random digit telephone recruitment using quota sampling, and (3) snowball sampling to fill in demographic gaps. In general, participants were non-specialists who were motivated to understand the importance of the issues, and were not meant to reflect a perfectly random assortment of Canadians. The topic of this consensus conference was the development of rapid, portable, low-cost diagnostic devices. Such devices are being developed in many parts of the world, and utilize micro-fluidics, electrical fields, micro-scale pumps, and fluorescence technologies to analyze biological samples including blood, urine, water, etc. Such devices have been called various names including micro-fluidic platform technology and lab-on-chip technology. These devices, and the glass and silicon chips that are used with them, will provide point of care and point of concern testing that may usher in a new age of testing and monitoring. This brings the functionality of a large-scale laboratory down to the size of a hand-held unit which can perform diagnostic testing, meter, measure and mix samples, move mixtures to temperature-controlled chambers, and separate and analyze results. By taking advantage of favourable scaling properties and a small footprint, this promises to improve the availability of diagnostic and genetic testing, environmental monitoring, and several other clinical and non-clinical applications. Clearly, such has many risks and benefits associated with its use, and also raise a range of socio-economic and ethical issues. …

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.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,859
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,973

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,575
Tête enseignante GPT0,563
Écart entre enseignants0,013 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2008
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHealth law reviewMême sujetClimate Change Communication and PerceptionTravaux en français237 207