International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) Guidelines for the Conduct of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research (December 2006)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) Guidelines for the Conduct of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research, prepared by an international group of leading stem cell scientists, bioethicists and lawyers, build on the proposals previously drafted by agencies active in the conduct and funding of stem cell science. They aim not to duplicate existing codes of ethics in research with humans or animals, but to address special sensitivities about human embryo research and acquisition of ova, sperm, embryos and somatic tissues from often vulnerable or dependent donors. Guidelines concern the procurement of research materials, the derivation of stem cells, and banking , distribution and use of cells and cell lines derived from pre-implantation stages of human development. They categorize research that on ethical grounds requires special stem cell research oversight (SCRO), and indicate how that should be undertaken. They emphasize international collaboration in these activities, to maximize benefits to humanity.
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 | 0.039 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.026 |
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".