MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7084099240 · doi:10.2966/scrip.070210.283

Lost in Translation: China’s Struggle to Develop Appropriate Stem Cell Regulations

2010· article· en· W7084099240 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSCRIPTed A Journal of Law Technology & Society · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control and Ventilation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStem cellGovernment (linguistics)ChinaEmbryonic stem cellGovernment regulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the regulations that govern stem cell use in China. We draw our findings from an analysis of government policies and documents, formal and grey literature, and thirty-nine interviews with Chinese stem cell experts. Although China developed research guidelines for embryonic stem cell research early on, it is still struggling to develop appropriate regulations surrounding the clinical translation of stem cell research. We identify the lessons that can be learned from China’s experiences developing appropriate regulations for their stem cell sector, and show the importance of timely regulation and of regulation for each stage of product development from research through to clinical applications. We discuss the development of appropriate regulation, and the international significance of Chinese stem cell regulations.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.598
Threshold uncertainty score0.435

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.243 · 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