Bibliographic record
Abstract
This poster was presented at the at Genome Canada G[E.sup.3]LS Winter Symposium in Montreal, February 6-8. 2003. Research Question What are the social representations of cloning risks and benefits? Methodology Focus groups: In order to explore social representations in public perception, three focus groups were held in January 2003. The focus groups were composed of randomly recruited members of the general public from Calgary, Alberta. Content Analysis In order to investigate social representations in the media, Globe and Mail articles about cloning were coded and analysed from 1997, when Dolly was cloned, through to 2001. Conclusions Social Representations of Body Part Cloning The Globe and Mail articles and the focus group participants shared the same hopes for body part cloning, but they differed regarding concerns. Social Representations of Animal Cloning Both the Globe and Mail articles and the focus group participants recognized that there are both benefits and risks for animal cloning. They identified very different sets of benefits and risks. However, both agreed that cloning endangered/extinct animals would be a benefit and that genetic defects would be a risk. Social Representations of Human Cloning The Globe and Mail presented a balanced picture of the risks and benefits associated with human cloning, but the focus group participants clearly had limited hopes for this type of cloning--they saw it as mad science. Focus Group Findings Body Part Cloning Animal Cloning Human Cloning HOPES HOPES HOPES The public identified Participants' main Participants made it two key hopes for body categories of hopes very clear that they part cloning: for animal cloning had no hopes for included: human cloning: * Increase in organs don't think this available for trans- * Expansion of scien- group is really plants. tific/medical know- hoping for human ledge. cloning. I might be * Curing diseases, generalizing, but such as Alzheimer's * Perfecting cloning nobody put human and Parkinson's. technique on animals cloning down as a before it is used on hope. humans. * Bringing endangered/ extinct species back to life. CONCERNS CONCERNS CONCERNS At first participants The two major concerns Participants had a said they had no raised were: lot of anxiety about concerns about body human cloning. They part cloning. However, * Genetic defects in identified seven main after a couple of cloned animals. categories of minutes of brain- concern: storming, the groups * Impact of cloned generated three main animals on the * Use of human categories of environment. cloning for evil concerns: purposes. * The process of body * Inhumane treatment part cloning. …
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".