The Perception of Human Cloning: A Comparative Study between Difference Faiths in Malaysia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports a study on the perception of the Malaysian of different faiths on the issue of human cloning. Altogether 1920 respondents from all over the country participated in the study. Each respondent was given a booklet containing questionnaire about the cloning of human being. The question was provided with five choices of response in the form of Likert style scale, ranging from 1. Strongly disagree, 2. Disagree, 3. Not sure, 4. Agree, and 5. Strongly agree. The raw data obtained were analysed using the SPSS. The data were analysed to obtain the percentage, and mean and the different means were analyzed using t-test to know whether the difference of means were significant or not. The finding show that less than 58.2% of the respondents perceived that human cloning is against religion. The result of the study has also shown that 62.5% of the Muslim respondents, 41.3% of the Christian respondents, 57.25% of the Buddhists respondents and 40.4% of the Hindu respondents perceived that human cloning is against religion. The means responses of the respondents based on the religion also differ from each other and was tested with one-way ANOVA, the means differences are significant. Muslim respondents show stronger perception that human cloning is against religion followed by the other respondents of other faiths. Moreover, the mean difference is significant between the mean respondents and the mean responses of the respondents from other faiths.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".