Electrodes in the brain: Some anthropological and ethical aspects of deep brain stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".