National Bioethics Advisory Commission 1998 - 1999 Biennial Report
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
he past two years have been productive for the Commission.We have completed three reports and initiated two new projects related to the protection of human subjects in research.As the new millennium approached, we met for the 36th time in December 1999, in Baltimore, Maryland, continuing a trend of convening our regular meetings in different locations around the country.This second biennial report provides a summary of our accomplishments and describes our ongoing agenda, which has always been centered on issues surrounding the protection of human subjects in research and ethical issues in the use of genetic and other medical information.In 1998-1999, two of the three reports we completed were in these areas: one on the ethical conduct of research involving persons whose decisionmaking capacity is limited by mental illness, and a second report on the ethical and policy issues concerning the research use of human biological materials.In addition, as in the past, the Commission was asked by President Clinton to temporarily put its agenda on hold to deliberate and issue recommendations on an emerging area of research-in this case, human embryonic stem cell research.That report, undertaken in the midst of the Commission's ongoing work, was completed in September 1999.Over this period, the Commission staff have established important and fruitful relationships with many groups that have a vital stake in our work, including international organizations, patient groups, scientific groups, academic institutions, health care providers, federal agencies, and offices of Congress.Input from these groups and consistent outreach from the Commission to them has enriched our work and has made it more valuable.In addition to official outreach from Commission staff members, commissioners have served as emissaries, speaking to groups in their own communities and communicating in personal ways their experiences and views on some of the nation's most complex and important bioethical issues.We increasingly have seen our work widely read and disseminated, which is especially gratifying, as we believe that an ongoing national conversation about these issues is a critically important component of policy development.As in any complex policy area, the views expressed by commissioners are diverse and frequently reflect the range of perspectives to be found in our society.In the next year we look forward to completing our discussions concerning ethics in international research and our comprehensive review of the current system of human subjects protections in the United States.As always, we could not complete our assignments without the hard work and dedication of our staff and consultants and the many scholars and experts who provide testimony and written materials in support of our work.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,009 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,274 | 0,180 |
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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».