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
Similar to other scientific areas, such as genetics and stem cell research, nanotechnology has sparked both public enthusiasm and social concern. Though hardly a new field of research, it is only recently that nanotechnology has caught attention of popular media and major public funding agencies. As a result of these developments, nanotechnology is now focus of policy discussions and ethical debates. In this special edition of Health Law Review we explore both scientific and social issues associated with nanotechnology. We have brought together a remarkable, interdisciplinary, collection of authors, including lawyers, philosophers, sociologists, communications experts, and nanotechnology scientists; perfect team to provide information about reality of current science and to analyse complex and still forming social concerns associated with nanotechnology. A theme that runs through many of papers in this collection relates to that surrounds nanotechnology. There are already a number of outspoken stakeholders that are both actively promoting as well as crusading against nanotechnology--a reality explored in paper by Einsiedel and McMullen. Groups such as Canada's ETC Group, for example, have gone so far as to call for a complete moratorium on nanotechnology research, portraying severe environmental and social concerns. Advocates of research, such as those within government who view nanotechnology as an important plank of emerging knowledge-based economy, emphasize theoretical benefits and commercial potential. Though these stakeholder groups often serve to facilitate public dialogue on important issues, they also tend to push debate to extremes and cloud public discussions with highly speculative risks and benefits. Regardless of source of hype, our experience with biotechnology shows that too much hype can be detrimental. It can adversely affect public trust, private investment and policy debate. As noted by Williams-Jones, if governments, academic scientists, and industry wish to effectively develop potential of nanoscience and nanotechnologies, they must be cognisant of dangers of over-hyping research and losing public trust. Countering hype must start with an appreciation of science and its likely applications. To this end, Tyshenko's piece covers controversial area of molecular nanotechnology. And by separating the reality of nanoscience and nanotechnology from fantasy, Wolkow's paper seeks to provide a more moderate vision of this field of study than is often found in popular press. …
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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) | 0,000 | 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