Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetics and Human Behaviour: The Ethical Context by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2002) is the outcome of an extensive review of quantitative genetic studies conducted by a working party of 13 scholars in the United Kingdom that was based on their own reading of the scientific literature as well as interviews and consultations with 40 experts in behavior genetics and opinions submitted by 44 interested organizations and 64 individuals, mostly academics. After reviewing the history of behavior genetics and its relationship with eugenics, the document introduces the reader to the methods of heritability and linkage analysis, touches briefly on animal models and then presents a review focused on the quantitative genetics of intelligence, personality, antisocial behavior and sexual orientation. Much of the document appears to be a one-sided defense of heritability analysis, in which the many critics of that approach have no voice. The document states that: ‘Estimates of heritability and other statistical techniques are useful in understanding the relative contribution of different types of influence.’ (p. xxiii). Finally, there is a lengthy discussion of the practical policy implications of behavior genetic research.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.028 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".