MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156814677

Involving the Public in Public Health Genomics: A Review of Guidelines and Policy Statements

2008· review· en· W2156814677 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Denise Avard, Gabrielle Grégoire, Michèle Jean S.

Bibliographic record

VenueÉrudit documents and data repository (Érudit Consortium, University of Montreal) · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGenome Canada
KeywordsPublic healthPublic relationsPublic policyPublic health policyPolitical scienceGenomicsHealth policyMedicinePathologyBiologyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Public health genomics raises exciting possibilities for preventing or reducing the occurrence of both rare and common disease. However, this area of research raises challenging ethical, legal and social issues that must be addressed. One way of addressing these issues is through public involvement in the policy-making process. This GenEdit reviews how international guidelines and policy statements related to public health genomics address the issue of public involvement. Key areas of discussion are the values and goals justifying public involvement, the proposed activities to increase public involvement, who is / who represents "the public", and the projected outcomes of public involvement.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0110.018
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.415
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.095 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉrudit documents and data repository (Érudit Consortium, University of Montreal)Same topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207