MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082721106 · doi:10.31542/muse.v4i1.1866

CRISPR: A Revolutionary Technique... For Humans?

2020· article· en· W3082721106 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Chrissa Barroma

Bibliographic record

VenueMacEwan University Student eJournal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCRISPRGenome editingGermlineComputational biologyCas9BiologyOrganismGeneticsComputer scienceGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CRISPR/Cas9 is a revolutionary technique that carries the possibility of altering the genomic sequence of an organism. Discovered in a bacterial immune system, CRISPR/Cas9 has been a popular topic of discussion since its first publication in 2012. In this essay, the opposing arguments on the use of CRISPR/Cas9 are discussed, based on the practical uses in human genetic engineering. First, the technique is described along with the comparison of other successful gene editing techniques. Secondly, the ethical and clinical implications are also discussed, and the effects of CRISPR use on human germline and somatic cells. This essay aims to answer whether CRISPR/Cas9 should be used to edit the genome of humans?

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacEwan University Student eJournalSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207