MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2300701083 · doi:10.29173/irie194

Genetische Informationen: Eigentumsansprüche und Verfügbarkeit

2006· article· en· W2300701083 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
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

VenueThe International Review of Information Ethics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical and Health Sciences Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProperty (philosophy)Order (exchange)Point (geometry)Computer scienceMedical informationField (mathematics)EpistemologyBusinessPhilosophyKnowledge managementMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of genetic information about a patient may cause serious concern within the discourse on informational privacy. In our article we would like to discuss a positive example of a diagnostic use of genetic information in the field of molecular genetics. With regard to this example we will discuss the question who owns the genetic information to determine who should decide which data is to be stored or deleted. We will use a Kantian concept of property in order to show that the genetic information in the example given is to be considered the property of the patient. We shall argue, that the information should be considered as a part of the medical sphere, which is to be informationally sealed. Although we present hereby a theoretical framework for a design of an appropriate information infrastructure, we will finally point out to the high costs of such an infrastructure.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.695
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.367 · 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