MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130104315 · doi:10.7202/1035496ar

Moral Responsibility in the Context of Prenatal Testing: What can be Expected?

2016· article· en· W2130104315 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Marie–Ève Lemoine

Bibliographic record

VenueBioéthiqueOnline · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomyMoral responsibilityVirtueContext (archaeology)Social responsibilitySocial psychologyPsychologyEpistemologySociologyPolitical sciencePublic relationsPhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Authors have suggested that considering the ethical and social aspects of prenatal testing could be seen as an individual responsibility for patients, but no conceptual grounds have been provided for this thesis. I argue that Candace Cummins Gauthier’s account of “moral responsibility as a virtue”, developed as an attempt to reconcile notions of autonomy and community, provides such basis.

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)0.057
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.116
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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0570.116
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.081
Scholarly communication0.0140.032
Open science0.0050.011
Research integrity0.0250.028
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioéthiqueOnlineSame topicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207