MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150429456 · doi:10.1159/000051125

Method and Complexity in Bioethics: The Example of Community Genetics

2000· article· en· W2150429456 on OpenAlexaff
Ghislaine Cleret de Langavant

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Health Genomics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioethicsCreativityEngineering ethicsSociologyManagement scienceBiologyGeneticsPsychologySocial psychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes the need to develop a new methodology in bioethics that can consider multiple interactions, creativity and the organisation specific to complex systems. Community genetics is taken as an example of complexity in bioethics. Community genetics involves large populations and illustrates certain characteristics of complex adaptive systems which are discussed in the article.

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)0.064
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0640.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.671
GPT teacher head0.583
Teacher spread0.088 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Health GenomicsSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207