MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123042674 · doi:10.29173/irie193

Electrodes in the brain: Some anthropological and ethical aspects of deep brain stimulation

2006· article· en· W2123042674 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elizabeth Hildt

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Information Ethics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationStimulationHuman brainBrain stimulationNeuroscienceBrain activity and meditationNorm (philosophy)PsychologyNeuroethicsCharacter (mathematics)Cognitive scienceMedicineElectroencephalographyPolitical scienceLawInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the following text, medical, anthropological and ethical issues of deep brain stimulation, a medical technology in which electrodes implanted in the human brain electrically influence specified brain regions, will be discussed. After a brief account of the deep brain stimulation procedure and its chances and risks, anthropological and ethical aspects of the approach will be discussed. These relate to the reversibility of the procedure and to the patient?s capacity to control the effects it exerts in the brain, to modifications and fluctuations in a person?s character traits and individuality brought about by neurostim ulation, an d to the range of legitim ate, adequate uses of the deep brain stimulation approach. The paper concludes that deep brain stimulation should be confined to therapeutic contexts and to severe, otherwise treatment-refractory disorders in which the aim is to norm alize brain fun ctioning. A part from this, it sh ould not be used to m odify a person?s individ ual character traits and behaviour or to enhance human traits.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.717
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.336 · 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.

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

Citations22
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Review of Information EthicsSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207