Bibliographic record
Abstract
The promises of human embryonic stem cell (hESC)research and the needs of Canadian scientists to ac-quire fresh human embryos with which to partici-pate in this important field of inquiry may result in the un-intended compromise of the professional obligations of Canadian physicians.1 The strong preference for fresh as op-posed to cryopreserved embryos follows the work of South Korean scientists who have derived multiple stem lines us-ing fresh human embryos,2,3 with an efficacy rate much higher than rates reported in studies involving cryo-preserved embryos. Canadian scientist Andras Nagy con-firmed recently that he indeed used fresh embryos provided by a Canadian physician for his successful stem cell deriva-tion.4 However, since the advent of embryo cryo-preservation in the late 1980s,5 physicians have generally not offered their patients the choice to donate fresh embryos to research, since this choice could decrease their patients’ chances of pregnancy or increase their risk of harm because of the additional cycles of menotropin drugs and oocyte re-trieval surgery that may be required if the current treatment cycle does not result in a child).6 Canada’s Assisted Human Reproduction (AHR) Act 7 and the Canadian Institutes of
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 | 0.005 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.188 | 0.065 |
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".