MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886355382 · doi:10.30899/dfj.v6i20.306

Notas sobre a regulamentação jurídica da utilização de bancos de células-tronco do cordão umbilical e placentário

2012· article· pt· W2886355382 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

VenueRevista Brasileira de Direitos Fundamentais & Justiça · 2012
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative and Oncologic Care
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUmbilical cordPolitical scienceMedicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

O artigo analisa as implicações envolvendo as células-tronco, desde a eficácia de suas pesquisas até o armazenamento do sangue do cordão umbilical e placentário em Bancos de Sangue. As pesquisas devem pautar-se pelo respeito aos direitos humanos, como o princípio de proteção à vida, o princípio de salvaguarda da dignidade humana, o princípio da igualdade e o princípio de autonomia sobre o próprio corpo. A regulamentação jurídica, baseando-se na Constituição Federal de 1988, bem como as Portarias promulgadas pelo Ministério da Saúde regulam e controlam o exercício das pesquisas nessa área. A criação de Bancos Sangue públicos e privados permite que as pesquisas com as células-tronco existentes no sangue do cordão umbilical e placentário sejam realizadas, como meio de promoção do conhecimento e de possibilidades de aplicações terapêuticas presentes e futuras.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.300 · 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