MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051714261 · doi:10.1089/scd.2013.0385

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration Should Solidify the Legal Basis for Its Authority over Reproductive Cloning

2013· article· en· W2051714261 on OpenAlex
Bernard J. Siegel, Arnold I. Friede

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

VenueStem Cells and Development · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPluripotent Stem Cells Research
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Genetics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyCloning (programming)Human cloningFood and drug administrationConfusionJurisdictionAdministration (probate law)Environmental ethicsLawPolitical scienceGeneticsPharmacologyPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The promise and potential of stem cell research is apparent. However, ethical questions still linger. There is as yet no consensus in the U.S. Congress on how to address the issue of reproductive cloning and media confusion of this and the quite separate issue of therapeutic cloning inhibits therapeutic advance. This paper outlines the need for the FDA to undertake a deliberate process, with input from all stakeholders, to authoritatively establish its jurisdiction over human reproductive cloning so as to foster the life-saving potential of therapeutic cloning.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.248 · 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