MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985720531 · doi:10.1086/529565

Ethical Muscle and Scientific Interests: A Role for Philosophy in Scientific Research

2008· review· en· W1985720531 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Quarterly Review of Biology · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDishonestyResearch ethicsNeuroethicsEngineering ethicsEpistemologyQuality (philosophy)PsychologySociologyPhilosophySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ethics, a branch of philosophy, has a place in the regulatory framework of human subjects research. Sometimes, however, ethical concepts and arguments play a more central role in scientific activity. This can happen, for example, when violations of research norms are also ethical violations. In such a situation, ethical arguments can be marshaled to improve the quality of the scientific research. I explore two different examples in which philosophers and scientists have used ethical arguments to plead for epistemological improvements in the conduct of research. The first example deals with research dishonesty in pharmaceutical development. The second example is concerned with neuropsychological research using fMRI technology.

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.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.011
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.326
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.170 · 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