Contact Us for More Information: An Analysis of Public Enquiries about Stem Cells
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: This study examines online enquiries received by two prominent stem cell science initiatives operating in different geographical jurisdictions. Materials & methods: Combined quantitative and qualitative analysis undertaken of internet-based queries (n = 1047) received by Stem Cells Australia and EuroStemCell from members of the public over a two-year period (May 2014–2016). Results: Findings reveal striking similarities between the two datasets and highlight the range of uncertainties, priorities and needs of those seeking information about stem cells online. Conclusion: Sustained and in-depth tailored guidance is needed to effectively meet the diverse stem cell-related information-based needs of communities internationally. Such efforts should be prioritized by regenerative medicine research initiatives and organizations, given the trust and hope diverse publics appear to place in these groups.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it