MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406179160 · doi:10.1515/9783839473863

Reproduktion und das gute Leben

2024· book· de· W4406179160 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuetranscript Verlag eBooks · 2024
Typebook
Languagede
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical and Health Sciences Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of CambridgeYork University
KeywordsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wie hängen ethische Fragen der Reproduktionsmedizin mit unterschiedlichen Vorstellungen des guten Lebens zusammen? Die Beiträger*innen nutzen das Konzept der Intersektionalität, um zu klären, wer als reproduktives Subjekt adressiert wird und welche Vorstellungen guten Lebens im Gegenzug durch Abwertung oder Nichtbeachtung ausgeschlossen werden. Im Zentrum stehen dabei normalistische Konzeptionen guten Lebens sowie angemessene Zeitlichkeit mit Blick auf menschliche Fortpflanzung. So gelingt es, zentrale Hintergrundannahmen in der Ethik der Reproduktionsmedizin kritisch zu reflektieren und Debatten über Marginalisierungsprozesse im deutschsprachigen Raum anzustoßen.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.369
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.017

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.403
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