MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401056679 · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-63917-3_5

Governing the Unknown: Regulating Future Technologies

2024· book-chapter· en· W4401056679 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa F. Clark, Jill E. Hobbs

Bibliographic record

VenueSpringerBriefs in environmental science · 2024
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEthics and Social Impacts of AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputational biologyComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter examines how governance structures and regulatory frameworks can respond to emergent new breeding techniques. We discuss how the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the Precautionary Principle continue to shape regulatory systems. Recent developments in the EU’s approach to regulating future biotechnologies are examined. The complex patent, licensing, and freedom to operate landscape for CRISPR and other gene editing technologies is explored. Looking ahead, we argue that using deliberative elements of governance helps stakeholders better identify opportunities and respond to future, unknown technologies that may offer benefits to the challenges facing agricultural food production in the twenty-first century.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.262 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpringerBriefs in environmental scienceSame topicEthics and Social Impacts of AIFrench-language works237,207