MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969085579 · doi:10.1177/1049732314568199

Media Discourse on the Social Acceptability of Fecal Transplants

2015· article· en· W1969085579 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kim Chuong, Kieran C. O’Doherty, David Secko

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityUniversity of Guelph
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsFecal bacteriotherapyMicrobiomeClostridium difficileLegitimacyFecesMedicineImmunologyBiologyPolitical scienceMicrobiologyBioinformaticsAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advances in human microbiome research have generated considerable interest in elucidating the role of bacteria in health and the application of microbial ecosystem therapies and probiotics. Fecal transplants involve the introduction of gut microbes from a healthy donor's stool to the patient and have been documented as effective for treating Clostridium difficile infections (CDIs) and some other gastrointestinal disorders. However, the treatment has encountered regulatory hurdles preventing widespread uptake. We examined dominant representations of fecal transplants in Canadian media and found that fecal transplants are often represented as being inherently disgusting or distasteful (the "ick factor"). This "ick factor" is used to construct different messages about the treatment's social acceptability and legitimacy. We conclude that an over-emphasis on the "ick factor" constrains public discourse from a more nuanced discussion of the social challenges, scientific concerns, and regulatory issues surrounding the treatment.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.748

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.639
GPT teacher head0.624
Teacher spread0.015 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Health ResearchSame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207