The ideological position of scientists towards the science of genetically modified foods and its ethical considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of the study was to explore and understand ideological positions of biotechnology scientists according to their attitudes towards the risks and benefits, ethical concerns, and views on government and industry performance, as well as their beliefs about consumers and biotechnology. A qualitative research design was pursued using in-depth semi-standardized interviews. A convenience sample of 33 individuals from the University of Guelph was interviewed, sourcing from different scientific areas related to the subject of GMF. Thematic data analysis was conducted which enabled the researcher to access a variety of phenomenological information as an inductive approach to the investigation. Based on scientists' perceptions towards genetically modified foods and organisms, four themes explained how scientists' ideological positions were constructed and what factors defined their views on the technology. The themes were: the "Value of Science", the "Role of Ethics", the "Value of Information" and the "Role of Control".
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 | 0.051 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".