Comparative Analysis of Religion and The Public Ethics of Stem-Cell Research: Community-Based Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined international public opinion towards stem-cell research during the period when the issue was at its most\ncontentious. We draw upon representative sample surveys in Europe and North America, fielded in 2015 and find\nthat most people in Europe, Canada and the United States supported stem-cell research, providing it was tightly\nregulated, but that there were key differences between the geographical regions in the relative importance of different\ntypes of ethical position. In the U.S., moral acceptability was more influential as a driver of support for stem-cell\nresearch; in Europe the perceived benefit to society carried more weight; and in Canada the two were almost equally\nimportant. We also find that public opinion on stem-cell research was more strongly associated with religious\nconvictions in the U.S. than in Canada and Europe, although many strongly religious citizens in all regions approved\nof stem-cell research. We conclude that if anything public opinion or ‘public ethics are likely to play an increasingly\nimportant role in framing policy and regulatory regimes for sensitive technologies in the future
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 | 0.021 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; 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".