MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

THE INTERMITTENCIES OF LIFE: AN ANALYSIS OF LONGEVITY IN TALES OF BIOTECHNOLOGY

2016· article· en· W2518891365 on OpenAlexaff
Núbia Bento Rodrigues, Annete Leibing, Pierre-Luc Saint-Hilaire

Bibliographic record

VenueBrazilian Journal of Medicine and Human Health · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLongevityAnalogyAutonomyStem cellEmbryonic stem cellEnvironmental ethicsMedicineSociologyEpistemologyBiologyGerontologyLawPolitical sciencePhilosophyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stem cells are fundamental devices of biomedical practice based on the notion that the body is able to supply the medication necessary to prolong life. Consequently, the concept of biotechnological autonomy is formulated, which is important for our analysis of longevity, an analogy to the analysis of fi niteness. In this paper, discourses were evaluated in which these practices are interpreted as “technologies of hope” or “of longevity”, stem cells being the means by which the biosciences promise to postpone death and control various diseases. We have sought to show how a mentality of aging and decrepitude is being overcome by the idea of longevity, forged by technologies that aim to recover the embryonic atavism of rebirth.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrazilian Journal of Medicine and Human HealthSame topicNeuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical InnovationsFrench-language works237,207