MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2188757662 · doi:10.23987/sts.55238

The trouble with embryos

2009· article· en· W2188757662 on OpenAlex
Françoise Βaylis, Timothy Krahn

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

VenueScience & Technology Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPluripotent Stem Cells Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsReprogrammingInduced pluripotent stem cellEmbryonic stem cellEmbryoMeaning (existential)BiologyPolitical scienceSomatic cellStem cellEngineering ethicsEnvironmental ethicsLawCell biologyGeneticsEpistemologyCellEngineeringPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an effort to quell ongoing debate about the ethics of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research, there have been concerted efforts to develop ethical standards for both embryo and hESC research and to entrench these standards in law. Surprisingly these efforts have not included efforts at standardizing the meaning of the pivotal term ‘embryo’. This paper reviews the legal framework for embryo research in the United Kingdom, the United States and Germany and highlights the absence of any agreed upon standard for what counts as a human embryo. This is an important lacuna, especially in light of the most recent advances in stem cell research involving the reprogramming of human somatic cell nuclei to generate human induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells.

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 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 score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.293 · 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