Design-based methods for exploring ethical questions in the field of neurotechnologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous complex and multi-faceted ethical questions arise from the innovation of neurotechnologies. Addressing these issues effectively requires the involvement of a diverse range of stakeholders, including patients, treatment providers, home users, scientists and engineers from different disciplines, and industry representatives. Different groups, however, possess varying levels of knowledge and experience regarding the ethical use and innovation of neurotechnologies. Therefore, customized methods are needed to identify their perspectives and ethical concerns. This article aims to introduce practical methods for eliciting ethical questions in the field of neurotechnology, including user journeys, persona approaches, material thinking, scenario building, fictional media contributions, and categorization.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.112 | 0.134 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".