The Ethics of International Bioethics Conferencing: Continuing the Conversation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p dir="ltr">Our article, “Proposed Principles for International Bioethics Conferencing: Anti-Discriminatory, Global, and Inclusive,” urged a critical conversation with bioethicists around the globe on the ethics of international bioethics conferencing (Jecker et al. Citation2024). Focusing on site selection, we tentatively set forth seven principles: anti-discriminatory, international, green, fair-minded, leave no one behind, free exchange of ideas, and epistemic justice. We appreciate the vigorous response our proposal generated, and the overall recognition of the ethical importance of the topic. We are grateful to Van Der Graaf and colleagues, who were the first in the literature to pinpoint the need for sustained debate within bioethics on the ethics of ethics conferencing (Van Der Graaf et al. Citation2023). We cannot do justice to all points colleagues raised across 15 separate commentaries. In this short response, we focus on objections and proposed addenda to the seven principles. <h2>Other Information</h2><p dir="ltr">Published in: The American Journal of Bioethics<br>License: <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" target="_blank">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</a><br>See article on publisher's website: <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2024.2316530" target="_blank">https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2024.2316530</a>
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 | 0.068 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".