MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767312864 · doi:10.2217/rme-2017-0060

Fake News Portrayals of Stem Cells and Stem Cell Research

2017· article· en· W2767312864 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueRegenerative Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health EconomicsUniversity of Alberta
FundersStem Cell Network
KeywordsMisinformationStem cellInternet privacyPolitical sciencePublic relationsBiologyComputer scienceLawCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: This study examines how stem cells and stem cell research are portrayed on websites deemed to be purveyors of distorted and dubious information. METHODS: Content analysis was conducted on 224 articles from 2015 to 2016, compiled by searching with the keywords 'stem cell(s)' on a list of websites flagged for containing either 'fake' or 'junk science' news. RESULTS: Articles contained various exaggerated positive and negative claims about stem cells and stem cell science, health and science related conspiracy theories, and statements promoting fear and mistrust of conventional medicine. CONCLUSION: Findings demonstrate the existence of organized misinformation networks, which may lead the public away from accurate information and facilitate a polarization of public discourse.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.233 · 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