MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2776550760 · doi:10.25336/p6bs69

Inheritance: How Our Genes Change Our Lives—and Our Lives Change Our Genes

2017· article· en· W2776550760 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Andi Céline Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Studies in Population · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNutrition, Genetics, and Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDestiny (ISS module)Inheritance (genetic algorithm)Human genomeGenomeGeneBiologyGenealogySociologyGeneticsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dr. Sharon Moalem assures us that by the end of his book, or even by the end of this article, your entire genome, and the life it has helped shape, will never look or feel the same. Conventional wisdom dictates that our genetic destiny is fixed at conception, but Moalem's groundbreaking book shows us that the human genome is far more fluid and fascinating than most doctors and scientists ever imagined—that our genes are more of a shifting tide than a crystal ball. For better or worse, science is discovering that it is possible to accept or reject our inheritance.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.222
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Studies in PopulationSame topicNutrition, Genetics, and DiseaseFrench-language works237,207