MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The NBAC Report: Recommendations and Limitations

2004· book-chapter· en· W4388334267 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert F. Weir, Robert S. Olick, Jeffrey C. Murray

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioethicsMultidisciplinary approachPolitical scienceCommissionEngineering ethicsDisciplineAdvisory committeeStrengths and weaknessesPublic administrationLawEngineeringPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Chapter 5 discussed a number of international documents, including comprehensive reports and recommendations developed by multidisciplinary committees in the Netherlands, England, and Canada. Here we discuss a report on research with stored tissues by the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC), a multi-disciplinary committee established by executive order of President Clinton in October 1995. This chapter describes the goals of the NBAC report, analyzes its recommendations, assesses its strengths and weaknesses, and compares some of its recommendations and themes with those of the non-U.S. committees. We do not always agree with the NBAC report, but we applaud its important contribution to the ongoing debate about research with stored tissues.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.696
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBiomedical Ethics and RegulationFrench-language works237,207