MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173162457

Ethical question of the month — May 2003

2003· article· en· W3173162457 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEurope PMC (PubMed Central) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Science and Water Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCastrationTestosterone (patch)Period (music)Natural (archaeology)PsychologyMedicineHistoryArtEndocrinologyArchaeologyAesthetics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new marketing campaign for a castration device emphasizes its use for the banding of bulls at a later age. One advantage cited for this device is its ability to castrate bulls within 120 days of market, thereby allowing the producer to benefit from the natural growth-promoting effects of testosterone for a longer period of time. Several clinics and salesbarns in your area are advocating this new technique. You have reservations regarding the use of the procedure at this age, as there is a possibility of greater distress for bulls castrated at heavier weights. However, your reservations have also been interpreted as your concern that this new technique will cut into your sales of implants. How should you respond? (Submitted by Clarice Lulai, Barrie, Ontario)

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.190 · 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