MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884940558 · doi:10.1038/s41467-018-05188-3

A framework for enhancing ethical genomic research with Indigenous communities

2018· review· en· W2884940558 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaConcordia University
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Human Genome Research InstituteU.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsIndigenousTransparency (behavior)DisseminationResearch ethicsInclusion (mineral)GenomicsEngineering ethicsPublic relationsBiotechnologyPolitical scienceSociologyGenomeBiologyGeneticsSocial scienceEngineeringGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Integration of genomic technology into healthcare settings establishes new capabilities to predict disease susceptibility and optimize treatment regimes. Yet, Indigenous peoples remain starkly underrepresented in genetic and clinical health research and are unlikely to benefit from such efforts. To foster collaboration with Indigenous communities, we propose six principles for ethical engagement in genomic research: understand existing regulations, foster collaboration, build cultural competency, improve research transparency, support capacity building, and disseminate research findings. Inclusion of underrepresented communities in genomic research has the potential to expand our understanding of genomic influences on health and improve clinical approaches for all populations.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Open science, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0110.092
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 head0.771
GPT teacher head0.697
Teacher spread0.074 · 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