MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032670619 · doi:10.1097/yco.0b013e32832e088b

What is neuroethics? Empirical and theoretical neuroethics

2009· review· en· W2032670619 on OpenAlexaff
Georg Northoff

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Psychiatry · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroethicsEngineering ethicsPsychologyNeuroscienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Neuroethics is a recently emerging field that deals with predominantly empirical and practical issues of ethics in neuroscience. In contrast, theoretical and methodological considerations have rather been neglected and thus what may be called theoretical neuroethics. RECENT FINDINGS: The review focuses on informed consent and moral judgment as examples of empirical neuroethics and norm-fact circularity and method-based neuroethics as issues of a theoretical neuroethics. SUMMARY: It is argued that we need to consider theoretical and methodological issues in order to develop neuroethics as a distinct discipline, which as such can be distinguished from both philosophy/ethics and neuroscience.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), 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 score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.008
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 head0.278
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.232 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations39
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in PsychiatrySame topicNeuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical InnovationsFrench-language works237,207