MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109430394 · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030129

Lessons on Ethical Decision Making from the Bioscience Industry

2006· article· en· W2109430394 on OpenAlexafffund
Jocelyn E. Mackie, A.D. Taylor, David Finegold, Abdallah S. Daar, Peter Singer

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Medicine · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiotechnology and Related Fields
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
FundersGoddard Space Flight CenterUniversity of TorontoCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGenome CanadaOntario GenomicsNovo NordiskOntario Genomics Institute
KeywordsEngineering ethicsMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mackie and colleagues performed over 100 interviews with managers and executives at 13 bioscience companies to learn about bioindustry ethics from their perspective.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.129
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.157
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1290.157
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0200.094
Scholarly communication0.0360.036
Open science0.0050.014
Research integrity0.0770.068
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations27
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS MedicineSame topicBiotechnology and Related FieldsFrench-language works237,207