MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7025985433

�쑀�쟾�젙蹂� 李⑤퀎湲덉��쓽 踰뺤쟻臾몄젣 -�쇅援��쓽 洹쒖쑉 �룞�뼢怨� 洹� �떆�궗�젏�쓣 以묒떖�쑝濡� -

2018· article· en· W7025985433 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

VenueYUHSpace (Yonsei University Medical Library) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenetic discriminationGenetic testingLegislationPersonally identifiable informationBioethicsLife insuranceSocial insuranceInsurance policy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the onset of the Human Genome Project, social concerns about �쁤enetic information discrimination�� have been raised, but the problem has not yet been highlighted in Korea. However, non-medical institutions�� genetic testing which is related to disease prevention could be partially allowed under the revised �쏝ioethics and Safety Act�� from June 30, 2016. In the case of one domestic insurance company, DTC genetic testing was provided for the new customer of cancer insurance as a complimentary service, which made the social changes related to the recognition of the genetic testing. At a time when precision medicine is becoming a new standard for medical care, discipline on genetic information discrimination has become a problem that can not be delayed anymore. Article 46 and 67 of the Bioethics Act stipulate the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of genetic information and penalties for its violation. However, these broad principles alone can not solve the problems in specific genetic information utilization areas such as insurance and employment. The United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Germany have different regulations that prohibit genetic information based discrimination. In the United States, Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act takes a form that adds to the existing law about the prohibition of genetic information discrimination. In addition, the range of genetic information includes the results of genetic tests of individuals and their families, including �쐄amily history��. Canada has recently enacted legislation in 2017, expanding coverage to general transactions of goods or services in addition to insurance and employment. The United Kingdom deals only with �쁯redictive genetic testing results of individuals��. In the case of insurance, the UK government and Association of British Insurers (ABI) agree to abide by a policy framework (�쁂oncordat��) for cooperation that provides that insurers�� use of genetic information is transparent, fair and subject to regular reviews; and remain committed to the voluntary Moratorium on insurers�� use of predictive genetic test results until 1 November 2019, and a review of the Concordat in 2016. In the case of employment, The ICO�셲 �쁄mployment Practices Code (2011)�� is used as a guideline. In Germany, Human Genetic Examination Act(Gesetz 체ber genetische Untersuchungen bei Menschen) stipulates a principle ban on the demand for genetic testing and the submission of results in employment and insurance. The evaluation of the effectiveness of regulatory framework, as well as the form and scope of the discipline is different from country to country. In light of this, it would be desirable for the issue of genetic information discrimination in Korea to be addressed based on the review of related regulations, the participation of experts, and the cooperation of stakeholders.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.211 · 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