National Bioethics Advisory Commission 1998 - 1999 Biennial Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
he past two years have been productive for the Commission.We have completed three reports and initiated two new projects related to the protection of human subjects in research.As the new millennium approached, we met for the 36th time in December 1999, in Baltimore, Maryland, continuing a trend of convening our regular meetings in different locations around the country.This second biennial report provides a summary of our accomplishments and describes our ongoing agenda, which has always been centered on issues surrounding the protection of human subjects in research and ethical issues in the use of genetic and other medical information.In 1998-1999, two of the three reports we completed were in these areas: one on the ethical conduct of research involving persons whose decisionmaking capacity is limited by mental illness, and a second report on the ethical and policy issues concerning the research use of human biological materials.In addition, as in the past, the Commission was asked by President Clinton to temporarily put its agenda on hold to deliberate and issue recommendations on an emerging area of research-in this case, human embryonic stem cell research.That report, undertaken in the midst of the Commission's ongoing work, was completed in September 1999.Over this period, the Commission staff have established important and fruitful relationships with many groups that have a vital stake in our work, including international organizations, patient groups, scientific groups, academic institutions, health care providers, federal agencies, and offices of Congress.Input from these groups and consistent outreach from the Commission to them has enriched our work and has made it more valuable.In addition to official outreach from Commission staff members, commissioners have served as emissaries, speaking to groups in their own communities and communicating in personal ways their experiences and views on some of the nation's most complex and important bioethical issues.We increasingly have seen our work widely read and disseminated, which is especially gratifying, as we believe that an ongoing national conversation about these issues is a critically important component of policy development.As in any complex policy area, the views expressed by commissioners are diverse and frequently reflect the range of perspectives to be found in our society.In the next year we look forward to completing our discussions concerning ethics in international research and our comprehensive review of the current system of human subjects protections in the United States.As always, we could not complete our assignments without the hard work and dedication of our staff and consultants and the many scholars and experts who provide testimony and written materials in support of our work.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.274 | 0.180 |
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".