MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981801449 · doi:10.1093/eep/dvz018

Potential (mis)use of epigenetic age estimators by private companies and public agencies: human rights law should provide ethical guidance

2019· article· en· W2981801449 on OpenAlexaff
Charles Dupras, Stephan Beck, Mark A. Rothstein, Alison Berner, Katie M. Saulnier, Miriam Pinkesz, Anya E. R. Prince, Stamatina Liosi, Lingqiao Song, Yann Joly

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Zoology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRace, Genetics, and Society
Canadian institutionsMcGill University and Génome Québec Innovation Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman rightsLawEstimatorPolitical scienceBusinessStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.202
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.428
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2020.428
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.022
Scholarly communication0.0130.016
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0470.031
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.005

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations19
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCurrent ZoologySame topicRace, Genetics, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207