MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138542163 · doi:10.1088/0957-4484/14/3/201

 Mind the gap : science and ethics in nanotechnology

2003· article· en· W2138542163 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNanotechnology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanotechnology research and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsLEAPSEngineering ethicsSocietal impact of nanotechnologyNanotechnologyField (mathematics)Materials scienceEthical issuesPolitical scienceEngineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nanotechnology (NT) is a rapidly progressing field. Advances will have a tremendous impact on fields such as materials, electronics, and medicine. A thorough review of the current literature, governmental funding, and policy documents was undertaken. Despite the potential impact of NT, and the abundance of funds, our research revealed that there is a paucity of serious, published research into the ethical, legal, and social implications of NT. As the science leaps ahead, the ethics lags behind. There is danger of derailing NT if the study of ethical, legal, and social implications does not catch up with the speed of scientific development.

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.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.381
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.263 · 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