The Gender of Genetic Futures: The Canadian Biotechnology Strategy, Women and Health
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In these Opening Comments, Sue Sherwin explains the history of the Working Group on Women, Health and the New Genetics, and the goals of the national Strategic Workshop held on February 11 and 12, 2000 at York University in Toronto.At issue for concerned observers of the federal government's policy agenda for biotechnology, Sherwin suggests, are "basic questions of values."It is precisely the imperative of value definition and judgment which necessitates democratic rather than bureaucratic policy development in this burgeoning field.Yet the government's approach to defining values, Sherwin argues, has been inadequate at best, and incoherent at worst.Drawing on her own work in the field of feminist health care ethics, Sherwin seeks to "clarify and order the values underlying the Canadian Biotechnology Strategy" by investigating different meanings of 'freedom' and 'choice.'She advocates what she calls "relational autonomy" as a way to approach these ideals.Finally, Sherwin considers the structures and processes through which values -other than those advanced by industry -can be brought to bear in the development and deployment of policies.Despite the difficulty of such a task, Sherwin commends the importance of engaging citizens in the development of Canada-specific approaches to the assessment, promotion and restriction of biotechnology.Only in this way, Sherwin argues, can our policies "reflect and help to realize the deepest values of Canadians."
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it