MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W577996421 · doi:10.4324/9780203358306

Comparative Biomedical Policy

2004· book· en· W577996421 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomyFederalismPolitical scienceLegislationPublic administrationDignityBioethicsState (computer science)TechnocracyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. The Comparative Policy Design Perspective 2. Belgium: A Bioethical Paradise? 3. ART Policy in Italy: Explaining the Lack of Comprehensive Regulation 4. Policy Networks, Federalism and Managerial Ideas: How ART Non-Decision in Canada Safeguards the Autonomy of the Medical Profession 5. The United States: National Talk and State Action in Governing ART 6. ART in Spain: Technocratic Inheritance and Modernist Aspirations 7. United Kingdom: Regulation Through a National Licensing Authority 8. France: Protecting Human Dignity While Encouraging Scientific Progress 9. The Netherlands: Conflict and Consensus on Assisted Reproductive Technology Policy 10. Germany: ART Policies as Embryo Protection 11. Switzerland: Policy Design and Direct Democracy 12. Legislation for Protection: Why Norway Designed Restrictive Policies in the Field of ART 13. Comparing Policy Design Across Countries: What Accounts for Variation in ART Policy?

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.332 · 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

Quick stats

Citations62
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207