Neuroethics and fMRI: Mapping a Fledgling Relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) informs the understanding of the neural basis of mental function and is a key domain of ethical enquiry. It raises questions about the practice and implications of research, and reflexively informs ethics through the empirical investigation of moral judgments. It is at the centre of debate surrounding the importance of neuroscience findings for concepts such as personhood and free will, and the extent of their practical consequences. Here, we map the landscape of fMRI and neuroethics, using citation analysis to uncover salient topics. We find that this landscape is sparsely populated: despite previous calls for debate, there are few articles that discuss both fMRI and ethical, legal, or social implications (ELSI), and even fewer direct citations between the two literatures. Recognizing that practical barriers exist to integrating ELSI discussion into the research literature, we argue nonetheless that the ethical challenges of fMRI, and controversy over its conceptual and practical implications, make this essential.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.138 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".