‘<b><i>They had the right to know.</i></b>’ Genetic risk and perceptions of responsibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The idea that people should be responsible for their health is not new. The construction of health as a moral issue has often been applied to voluntary health risks. With the advent of predictive genetic testing, however, people may also bear responsibility for their genetic risks. Drawing upon 24 semi-structured interviews with at risk persons and their family members, this study explored perceptions of responsibility associated with genetic risk for the adult-onset disorder, Huntington disease (HD). Qualitative data analysis suggested that decisions around genetic risk were often influenced by obligations to other family members. Some participants felt responsible to determine their genetic risks through testing, particularly for at risk offsprings. Responsibility to current and future partners, to plan for a future that might include HD and to communicate genetic risk to other family members also emerged as important dimensions of genetic responsibility. It is argued that perceptions of responsibility in this context may constrain some of the choices of those who live with genetic risk having implications for test decisions, post-test adjustment and family relationships.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".