Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Introduction Public engagement is a significant challenge for many social scientists, physical scientists, and policy makers involved in genetics and genomics research. Despite our commitment to public involvement and extensive research in this area, we continue to struggle with many long standing criticisms (i.e., how to achieve representativeness, sampling biases) and barriers (i.e., public apathy, funding limitations). I argue that evaluating and comparing methods is an effective way to illuminate aspects of various approaches that will help us to ultimately reach our goals. For five weeks this spring, I had the opportunity to conduct research in this area with support from the Stichting Porticus Foundation's Multidisciplinary Human Gene Technology, Research, and Therapy Project Scholarship Programme. (1) My research resulted in a paper in which I discussed the public engagement efforts of the Genetics and Society Project at the University of Montreal [GSP] and The W. Maurice Young Centre for Applied Ethics at the University of British Columbia [CAE]. Each centre is deeply committed to G[E.sup.3]LS (2) public engagement activities. I explored the strengths and limitations of all current engagement activities at each centre by comparing them against sets of pre-determined motivational and evaluation criteria. The following three questions guided this analysis: (1) What truly motivates our public engagement efforts?; (2) How do our projects fare against document review findings and Justice Canada's evaluative criteria? (3); and (3) How can we help each other to better serve our publics? 2. Methods This project involved four tasks. First, a two part literature review was performed in order to compile lists of motivation and evaluation criteria created by government and non-governmental organizations and academic researchers. The HumGen database's Canadian policy statements were also examined. These findings would serve as the basis for the comparative analysis of public engagement activities conducted by the two research centres. Second, GSP public engagement activities were reviewed. Document reviews and informal interviews with members of the GSP team helped to clarify public engagement activities associated with the following projects: The CARTaGENE project; Inherit BRCA; The Sickle -Cell Disease Pilot Project; and Genomics and Public Health (GPH): Building Public Goods? project [GPH]. Third, public engagement activities completed by CAE were analyzed by examining published papers and drawing on my personal knowledge of the projects. (4) CAE G[E.sup.3]LS related activities examined in this analysis included: focus groups and NERD surveys conducted by Dr. Mike Burgess and Dr. Peter Danielson respectively as part of the Democracy, Ethics, and Genomics: Consultation, Deliberation, and Modeling [DEG] project; and the Orchids theatre project led by Dr. Susan Cox and Dr. Jeff Nisker. Finally, a comparative analysis was conducted of each Centres' public engagement efforts according to the evaluation and motivational criteria gathered during the literature review. This analysis provided insight into points of convergence and divergence between GSP and CAE projects and identified opportunities for collaboration. 3. Results It appears that GSP and CAE share many of the same motivational factors for their public engagement activities. (5) The HumGen website and NERD surveys both help individuals to work through complex issues (among other things), and all projects are motivated by a desire to promote public dialogue, create new partnerships, foster civic engagement, and assist in reducing democratic deficits for G[E.sup.3]LS issues. The desire to reduce democratic deficits in G[E.sup.3]LS research and policy is perhaps the strongest motivating factor for all GSP and CAE [GE.sup.3]LS projects. This objective compels researchers at each location to seek out new and innovative ways of engaging individuals who do not typically have the opportunity to participate in G[E. …
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 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 | 0.105 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".