MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2729570848 · doi:10.1093/jlb/lsx019

Biobank donors and the concept of benefit: time for reciprocity

2017· article· en· W2729570848 on OpenAlexaff
Ma’n H. Zawati, Michael Lang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Law and the Biosciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill Genome Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiobankIntellectual propertyReciprocity (cultural anthropology)Engineering ethicsPolitical scienceProperty (philosophy)Responsible Research and InnovationValue (mathematics)Law and economicsBusinessPublic relationsSociologyLawComputer scienceSocial scienceEngineeringEpistemologyBioinformaticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Helen Yu’s insightful article entitled ‘Redefining responsible research and innovation for the advancement of biobanking and biomedical research’ highlights the potentially crucial role of intellectual property regimes in encouraging and facilitating genomics innovations. Yu claims that one of the central objectives in ‘responsible research and innovation’ is the maximization of the value of publically funded research. She contends that this entails the return of benefit to society through, generally speaking, the production of new innovations. But this understanding, according to Yu, gives rise to novel challenges to the logic of intellectual property. This is so because patent law requires that new technologies not have undergone previous disclosure, while principles of open science require real time disclosure. This tension is heightened because the protections of intellectual property law are necessary for the safeguard of research and development.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.008
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Law and the BiosciencesSame topicBiomedical Ethics and RegulationFrench-language works237,207