MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909704692 · doi:10.15173/sciential.v1i1.1902

Innovative Commercial and Private Genetic Testing Raises Privacy and Confidentiality Concerns

2018· article· en· W2909704692 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueSciential - McMaster Undergraduate Science Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidentialityPersonally identifiable informationBusinessInternet privacyGenetic testingTest (biology)Third partyInformation sharingPrivate information retrievalAsk priceMarketingComputer securityComputer scienceMedicineWorld Wide WebFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obtaining information about your genes can be as easy as swabbing your cheek for DNA testing. Companies that offer direct-to-consumer genetic testing with saliva have the authority to collect and share personal data as well as test results from their clients. However, patients want their personal information to be protected and although these companies ask for consent before sharing information with third-party sources, companies have the right to use client data to initiate research or improve their business. Genetic testing companies need to respect their clients and understand that they are paying for a service which deals with sensitive information that individuals may not want collected and stored.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.015
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.336
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.172 · 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