ONCOLOGISTS' PERCEPTIONS OF THE ETHICAL, LEGAL AND SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF GENETIC TESTING AND MICROFLUIDIC LAB-ON-CHIP TECHNOLOGY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study are twofold: firstly, to give an account of the current methods of knowledge production, and secondly to contribute a consultation piece on oncologists’ perceptions of non-technical issues regarding the ethical, legal and social implications of microfluidic lab-on-chip technology (MF LOC). Two connected theses statements are put forth. First, understanding the transformations of knowledge production will allow for a more socially and ethically informed mode of governance to emerge. Second, it is important to consider who might use the technology and how it might impact institutions and individuals. Interviews were conducted with 31 Canadian oncologists during August 2004 to February 2005. Qualitative analysis was used to examine the oncologists’ responses. It was found that of the different types of knowledge production that were reviewed (Mode-1, Mode-2, Triple Helix, and Post-normal science) the Triple Helix thesis was most supported. However, an integration of characteristics of Mode-2 with the Triple Helix thesis best accounts for the current description of knowledge production. The principles inherent in Post-Normal Science provide a starting point for developing an approach for building capacity for an independent institution that examines the ethical, legal and social concerns regarding transformative technologies. In relation to the second thesis, the results indicate that MF LOC devices have great potential to transform institutional practices and affect individual lives. And it is important to understand that the oncologists studied constructed their understanding of MF LOC technology within a scientific and biomedical repertoire consequently, future research should assess the perceptions and concerns of other groups of people that are different from the scientific and biomedical repertoire.
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 | 0.020 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".