MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161199047 · doi:10.2217/rme.11.84

Global Update: England and Wales

2011· review· en· W2161199047 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRegenerative Medicine · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNational Institutes of HealthStem Cell Network
KeywordsAusterityGovernment (linguistics)Stem cellRegenerative medicinePolitical sciencePublic administrationPoliticsLawBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As Ben Sykes, an Executive Director of the UK National Stem Cell Network (UKNSCN), highlighted in his Brief History of Stem Cell Research, Funding and Regulation in the UK in last year's World Stem Cell Report, the UK ranks very high among the world leaders in stem cell research and regenerative medicine. Science funding has not been immune to the budget cuts and tough austerity measures that the British government implemented recently and deep cuts may force the country to lose its competitive edge in a number of research areas. However, in spite of such an environment, stem cell research and regenerative medicine has continued to thrive and have a strong impact worldwide. While one would expect to find stem cell research concentrated to key centers in Cambridge, London and Edinburgh, in fact there is exciting research going on across the country, as this report highlights.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.286 · 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