MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996187860 · doi:10.1353/ken.2013.0017

A Disability Critique of the New Prenatal Test for Down Syndrome

2013· article· en· W1996187860 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

VenueKennedy Institute of Ethics journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmDown syndromeTest (biology)PsychologyPsychiatryIntellectual disabilityMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents evidence that the availability of a new noninvasive test for Down syndrome (known as "MaterniT21") could result in increased uptake of prenatal testing for Down syndrome and an increase in selective abortions of affected fetuses. I argue that people with Down syndrome and those sympathetic to them have reason to object to these developments because bias against cognitive disability is an influence on decisions to test and terminate for Down syndrome, and social practices motivated by bias are objectionable. The article addresses many of the challenges to the disability critique formulated by its detractors. I discuss whether the disability critique is the same as the "expressivist" objection to prenatal testing, the nature of the harm experienced by people with Down syndrome, and the link between prenatal testing and this harm.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.288 · 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