MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234715503 · doi:10.3410/f.727838564.793537533

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Genes, cells, and biobanks: Yes, there's still a consent problem.

2017· dataset· en· W4234715503 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Douglas Sipp

Bibliographic record

VenueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature · 2017
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGenome AlbertaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta InnovatesAlberta Innovates - Health SolutionsGenome Canada
KeywordsBiobankEnthusiasmCommercializationPublic relationsPolitical scienceControl (management)Perspective (graphical)Informed consentEngineering ethicsMedicineAlternative medicinePsychologyLawManagementEngineeringBioinformaticsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From a research perspective, the interest in biobanking continues to intensify.Governments and industry have invested heavily in biobanks, as exemplified by initiatives like the United Kingdom Biobank and United States' Precision Medicine Initiative.But despite this enthusiasm, many profound legal and ethical challenges remain unresolved.Indeed, there continues to be disagreements about how best to obtain consent and the degree and nature of control that research participants retain over donated samples and health information.Emerging social trends-including concerns about commercialization and perceived rights of continuing control ("biorights")-seem likely to intensify these issues.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.103
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.103
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1420.142

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical LiteratureSame topicBiomedical Ethics and RegulationFrench-language works237,207