dataesr/scientific-paragraphs-categorization huggingface dataset:
Stimuli. Eighty-six grayscale object images were selected from the database used in Shenhav, Barrett, &  Bar 31  and from Internet searches. Images were 256 × 256 pixels (6 × 6 degrees of visual angle) and median object width was 220 pixels (SD = 47 pixels). The objects were cropped manually and pasted on a uniform mid-gray background. The SF spectrum of every object image was set to the average SF spectrum across all object images using the SHINE toolbox  32. This preserved the most important spectral properties of natural objects while eliminating sources of undesired variance in the stimuli. Resulting images had a root mean square (RMS) contrast of about 0. 20. On each trial, participants were shown a short video (333 ms) consisting of an object image with random SFs gradually revealed at random time points (e.
Acknowledgements This study was supported by a  Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)   Discovery Grant  ( RGPIN/04777-2014 ) to F. G. , and by scholarships from the  Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC)  and from the  Fonds de recherche du Québec Nature et technologies (FRQNT)  to L. C. We are grateful to  Philippe Des Roches  for his help with data collection. We thank all ASD volunteers and their families for participating in the project.
Three SNUs in the first layer and one SNU in the second (32 organic memristive devices total) are required to resolve this problem. The function is perfectly learned with perfect devices; when approximating experimental levels of inter-device variability, both programming styles can still successfully resolve the problem: mean 79% success rate is obtained for SR mode (Supplementary Fig. S13(a), (c )) and 71% for SO mode (Supplementary Fig. S13(b), (d)). To demonstrate the latter, a canonical image recognition task (the MNIST database of handwritten digits  45  ) was attempted using a simulated crossbar composed of 15,680 of our organic memristive synapses. Ten separate perceptrons or SNUs-one for each digit class-each require double the number of synaptic devices as pixels (p = 784) to encode positive and negative weights.
Once put in vacuum using an accessory pump (Alcatel ACP 286), said chip is connected to a custom-designed printed circuit board (PCB) connected to a power source (Agilent E3631A). Within the PCB, devices are connected to accessory circuitry such as the comparator, current to voltage converter, etc needed to read line output. In addition, the PCB contains components for electrostatic discharge (ESD) protection. The board is directly connected to an FGPA (Altera Cyclone DE2-70), which both reads from the devices and sends appropriate programming pulses by using the onboard logic (FSM) with which it has been programmed by accompanying generic Altera software (Quartus). A custom NIOS softcore dedicated to interface with a PC and corresponding graphical user interface were coded to allow for real time user control of the functions that have been loaded onto the FPGA during programming.
Functions such as erase, read, and learning modes (single epoch, or continuous) can be applied to devices subsequently. An oscilloscope (Agilent MSO 6014A) probes key electrical ports and is also connected to the PC for real time data collection assisted by LabView. A representation of the actual setup is available in Supplementary Fig. S1. Simulation details. Monte-Carlo (MC) simulations for both single SNU (experimental) and multilayer SNU (XOR) tasks were conducted using a functional model of the device and learning system written in Matlab. For each function being learned, 500 MC iterations-each which begins with a random set of low initial conductances among 8 simulated memristive devices-are simulated. When variability mode is enacted in the SO case, at each iteration, inter-device variability is additionally emulated by picking random first threshold and G Max values for each memristive device from a normal distribution around a characteristic value with σ(G Max ) = 40%, σ(V t1 ) = 10% and Δ G + pegged as 10%G Max.
Simulation in the MNIST case was achieved by presenting images from the MNIST database as a set of positive/negative voltage spikes to the input of a crossbar with 2 * p input wires and 10 output wires during many moments in separated testing and training phases. In the training phase the output of the wires immediately signals which correcting pulses are to be sent to each row, and weights are adjusted in a moment after but before the next sample is sent. The adjustments are precisely the on-chip Widrow-Hoff algorithm as described in Section IV with the following modification: an input index i with a pixel (spike) applied are given as X i+ = + 1. 5 V and X i-= -1. 5 V, and no spike at that iteration index receives the opposite (X i+ = -1. 5 V and X i-= 1. 5). During testing phase, digits are presented at read voltage so as not to disturb weight matrix W.
Acknowledgements This work was funded through the  French National Research Agency (ANR)  project  Moorea  ( ANR-12-BS03-004 ). Y. -P. Lin is funded through the  CEA Neuro-IC  project. C. Bennett  is funded through the  IDEX Paris-Saclay Nanodesign project. T. Cabaret was funded by the C' NANO IdF Project Cinamon. C'NANO IdF  is the nanoscience competence center of the Paris region, supported by  CNRS ,  CEA ,  MESR  and  Region Ile-de-France. D. Vodenicarevic  is funded by a public grant overseen by  ANR  as part of the  Investissement d' Avenir program  ( Labex NanoSaclay ,  ANR-10-LABX-0035 ). We especially thank  C. Gamrat  ( CEA-List ) for fruitful discussions.
In bioethics, the first decade of the twenty-first century was characterized by the emergence of interest in the ethical, legal, and social aspects of neuroscience research. At the same time an ongoing extension of the topics and phenomena addressed by neuroscientists was observed alongside its rise as one of the leading disciplines in the biomedical science. One of these phenomena addressed by neuroscientists and moral psychologists was the neural processes involved in moral decision-making. Today both strands of research are often addressed under the label of neuroethics. To understand this development we recalled literature from 1995 to 2012 stored in the Mainz Neuroethics Database (i) to investigate the quantitative development of scientific publications in neuroethics; (ii) to explore changes in the topics of neuroethics research within the defined time interval; (iii) to illustrate the interdependence of different research topics within the neuroethics literature; (iv) to show the development of the distribution of neuroethics research on peer-reviewed journals; and (v) to display the academic background and affiliations of neuroethics researchers.
Expanding the concept of neuroethics into the area of empirical knowledge about brain mechanisms involved in human behavior in moral contexts, however, made it necessary to reflect on the basic theoretical framework of the research field  (Evers, 2007; Northoff, 2009). Ascribing relevance to neuroscience for the normative questions addressed in ethics requires an account about how the descriptive propositions produced in neuroscience could inform the normative propositions made in ethics. This paved the way for a strand of metaethical discussions with relation to neuroethics  (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2006; Joyce, 2008; Kennett and Fine, 2008) , which, however, are only seldom included into the research agenda of the field  (Racine, 2010; Wagner and Northoff, 2015). With this study, we aim to complement the ongoing process of conceptualizing neuroethics as a research field with new empirical data from the Mainz Neuroethics Database (MND).
The Mainz Neuroethics Database Our empirical analysis draws on the scientific literature stored in the Mainz Neuroethics Database (MND) (available at https://teamweb. uni-mainz. de/fb05/Neuroethics/Lists/Bibliograp hy/Show. aspx). The MND started as an open-access online bibliography in 2006. It resulted from a multimodal compilation of publications (journal articles, books, edited volumes etc. ) in various languages, which referred to the term "neuroethics" or the respective equivalent non-English word or which were considered to be relevant to the field. Currently the database contains more than 4000 publications in English, French, German, Italian, Japanese and Spanish that appeared between 1975 and 2015. The members of the research group searched for publications to add to the database by regular scans of relevant journals from the neurosciences as well as from philosophy and other humanities and social sciences, by regularly searching the PubMed and Scopus databases and by making use of bibliographic thematically relevant literature lists (i.
e. , Brainstorm Newsletter). The literature added to the database was not restricted to research articles but also included editorials, opinion papers and reviews. Anthologies with an obvious reference to the neuroethics discourse were also added to the database. For the selection of publications from the various sources, the following criteria were used: Publications appearing in journals from the empirical neurosciences needed to make a reference to ethical or social impacts of the presented results, whereas publications appearing in journals from the humanities or social sciences needed to refer to empirical results from neuroscience or from psychological research. Furthermore, publications, which did not display this kind of transdisciplinarity were added if they were considered to be relevant to the field.
Eligibility Criteria and Bibliometric Method To allow for bibliometric analysis of the versatile material stored in the MND, we first performed a series of heuristics and manual checks to disambiguate author names present in several orthographical variations (for example, Baumeister, Roy and Baumeister, Roy F are merged into a single author name). This ensured a consistent identification and count of authors across the database and lowered the number of relevant publications. Second, we restricted the data corpus to articles that appeared between 1995 and 2012-a time interval that centers around the year of the founding conferences of current neuroethics and which therefore appeared most relevant for monitoring the development of the field. This left us with a corpus of 2296 relevant references.
Third, publications without an English abstract and keywords were sorted out, as they did not provide enough information for our procedure of automatic thematic categorization of publications. This step excluded the bulk of editorials and opinion papers as well as most of the non-peer-reviewed material from the dataset, 371 publications (16. 16%). Forth, each of the remaining 1925 publications was categorized according to a set of topical subject-categories (cf. Section Subject-Category Development and Supplements 1A, B in the Supplementary Material). For classification, the text of the abstract, headline and keywords of the publication were examined for matches with keywords associated with topical subject-categories. In case of a match, the publication was tagged with the subject-category corresponding to the matching keyword.
Coding Based on the headlines and abstracts, 400 randomly retrieved publications from the dataset were coded according to the topics they addressed. The coding was done independently using a close reading approach by EH and JL, who are both experts in the field of neuroethics. The coding was reviewed for reliability by another research assistant. By careful evaluation of abstracts, headlines and keywords of the bibliographical references, this procedure allowed for development of a system of 44 subject-categories. Candidates for subject-categories were general topics addressed in these text components. For example, "Enhancement" and "neurodegenerative diseases" were suitable candidates for such general topics, because both occurred in the literature with regard to several specific contexts, such as "pharmacological cognitive enhancement" and "brain-stimulation" or "Alzheimer's disease" and "aging" respectively.
Reliability Checks To check whether the keywords defining the 15 subject-categories were able to cover all the relevant topics of the publications in the database and to control for the adequacy of computer-based assignments of subject-categories, we manually checked the computer-based category assignments of 100 randomly selected publications. Our control suggested an inadequate assignment of categories in only 12% of the articles, a measure, which we consider still sufficiently accurate. To verify that the content of the bibliographical references harvested in each topic was indeed in line with the topic, we additionally analyzed the terms used in the abstracts, titles and keywords of the publication, which were assigned to a subject-category and evaluated wether they matched with the topic of the subject-category.
The Quantitative Development of Neuroethics Since 1995 To estimate the development of neuroethics as a discipline we first looked at the quantitative development of published work in the field. Looking at the distribution of publication dates, we found a general increase in publications within the selected time interval. While only eight publications with references to neuroethics have appeared in 1995 (0. 35% of all publications) in 2009, there were already 590 publications (25. 7%) in the database. Within the examined dataset, the increase in the number of publications was continuous except for the interval between 2009 and 2012. While in this interval the number of publications per year remained on a comparably high level, instead of increasing any further the number of publications per year fluctuated between 145 (6.
32%) in 2010 and 348 (15. 16%) in 2011. This striking fluctuation does not represent a feature of the development of neuroethics, but is very likely an artifact created through the maintenance of the MND. A closer analysis of the publications added to the database in the years 2009 and 2010 revealed discrepancies in the number of journals that contributed paper to the database (274 in 2009 and 83 in 2010) and the number of monographs and book chapters included. As our data show, this variety concerns all subject-categories and can only partly be explained by the founding of the journal "Neuroethics" and "AJOB Neuroscience" in 2008 and 2010 respectively. It is more likely that it relies on inconsistent in-and exclusions of publications in the years 2009 and 2010. The general trend of the temporal development of publication numbers in the Mainz database is consistent with the development of the number of publications in other databases such as Web of Science (WoS).
We tried several protocols for searches in the WoS database with only one protocol (neuro * /topic AND ethic * /topic) providing an approximately similar number and distribution of articles per year. In both databases there is a moderate increase in the number of publications between 1995 and 2005 (+8. 3% in MND and +6. 5% in WoS), a stronger increase between 2005 and 2009 (+101. 4% and +32. 6% respectively) and an inconsistent development between 2009 and 2012 (-109. 7% and +17. 7%) (cf. Figure  1 ). Moreover there is a similar overall increase across the whole time-span in both databases (+14. 6% in MND and +16. 7% in WoS). Except for the years 2009 and 2011 there is a higher total number of publications in the WoS database than in the MND, which is due to the more specific selection of publications in the MND.
Quantitative Description of the Subject-Categories The procedure of subject-category formation provided a structure, which divided the content of the database into 15 subject-categories (see Supplement 1 in the Supplementary Material). Of the 2296 publications retrieved from the MND, 1925 publications could be assigned at least one subjectcategory. Most of these publications belonged to more than one subject-category with an average number of 1. 7 subject-category attributions per publication. To assess the distribution of research topics in neuroethics during the last quarter century we counted the number of publications tagged in each of the categories (cf. Figure  2 ). The largest share of publications (14. 67%) was tagged as belonging to the subject-category Psychiatric and neurodegenerative diseases and disorders, the smallest share (1.
Hence, Psychiatric and neurodegenerative diseases and disorders is also the largest subject-category in terms of the number of relevant scientific journals. This holds for the whole scale of subjectcategories: the larger the category in terms of articles, the larger it is in terms of the number of relevant journals. A further general finding is that there are overall many more biomedical science journals that have published articles relevant for neuroethics, than there are SSH journals that have published work relevant for neuroethics. The ratio in our dataset is 2. 5:1. Except for four subject-categories (Philosophy of Mind and Consciousness, Legal Studies, Neuroscience and Society and Enhancement) the ratio of biomedical science journals to SSH journals is greater than one, indicating that the bulk of neuroethics research since 1995 has been published in journals that usually do not conceive of moral, legal and social questions of biomedical research as their proper topics.
As several researchers belonged to the top 20 in more than one subject-category the procedure provided a list of the names of 198 researchers. Queries in Google, WoS, and in the MND allowed us to add the academic discipline(s) in which these researchers were initially trained, their highest academic degree obtained, their current affiliation and the country of their current host institution (cf. Supplement 3 in the Supplementary Material). Linking these data revealed that a minority of the top researchers in neuroethics have a dual academic degree or have been educated in an interdisciplinary academic research program from the start (16. 2%). Hence, more than two thirds of the neuroethics researchers have been trained in only one discipline (68. 7%). The data we obtained from our research showed a strong variability in academic backgrounds of relevant neuroethics researchers (see Figure  6 ).
Nonetheless, according to our database scholars with an initial or additional training in philosophy or bioethics form a proportion of about 17. 02% of the authors in neuroethics. With regard to disciplinary affiliations neuroethics, researchers display surprisingly little mobility. Even though neuroethics is a highly interdisciplinary field and even though there aren't yet any structured programs for becoming a "neuroethicists" so that one might consider a high disciplinary mobility to be an advantage on the job market, we found that many of the scientists who publish in neuroethics stay affiliated with departments of the discipline in which they were initially educated. Most researchers still have their affiliation with a medical center or a science research institute (67. 2%). While most of the identified neuroethics researchers are affiliated with university medical centers (43.
26%), another 15. 96% work in neuroscience laboratories and another 7. 98% in psychology departments at universities or private research centers. Hence, also with regard to affiliation, the social sciences and humanities are underrepresented in neuroethics. Only 7. 98% of the researchers in our dataset were affiliated with a bioethics department, and another 4. 26% with a department specifically dedicated to neuroethics. The complete spectrum of the social sciences (sociology, political sciences, economics) only made up 3. 27% of the departments hosting neuroethics researchers with a high publication output (cf. Figure  7 ). Besides the US, researchers in neuroethics with a high publication output primarily work in Canada, the UK, Germany and Australia (cf. Table  3 ). All these industrial nations of the western hemisphere have also been at the forefront in neuroscience and medical research.
Hence, from a wider perspective of a technology-driven understanding of neuroethics this finding was expected. This result follows a trend that has been reported by  Lombera and Illes (2009) , who equally found that neuroethics research primarily centers in high-income countries as defined by the World Bank. However, in comparison to their investigation into the international dimensions of neuroscience from a quantitative perspective on the published research output, more contributions from countries like France, the Netherlands, Israel or Switzerland would have been expected. However, as we did not count for the hosting countries of authors from all publications in our database, the international dimension of neuroethics might be broader than our list suggests.
However, some topics in neuroethics especially those associated with ethical questions of clinical research (Brain Death, Medical Research) and technological developments (Enhancement, Neuroimaging) in neuroscience, have profited several years earlier from this gain of attention than topics related to other branches of neuroethics (Moral Theory, Brain Stimulation). A small exception to this trend is the ethical debate about issues in Deep Brain Stimulation that according to our data developed its strongest increase only after the year 2008, whereas it was much less discussed in the years before. Because the technology was in use for the treatment of Parkinson's disease at least since the 1990s, the development of this subject-category reflects the extension of possible applications of DBS onto psychiatric diseases.
This finding is consistent with those of  Lombera and Illes (2009) , who showed a dominance of publications on the "ethics and practice of brain science. " However, it does not mirror observations of  Gooray and Fergusson (Gooray and Ferguson, 2013) , who rank literature on moral philosophy and moral psychology as the second most abundant issue in neuroethics after issues in cognitive enhancement. This last opposing result, however, is very likely due to the use of different data-sets. Goory and Ferguson distinguished in their analysis between journal articles and books (which we did not) and restricted their search for neuroethics literature to a list of only 12 preselected journals. Our dataset instead comprised contributions from 105 different sources. The list of journals used by Gooray and Fergusson is extremely restricted insofar as it did not include any journal that is specifically concerned with clinical and health care issues in neurology and psychiatry and did not include any journal on applied ethics or bioethics except AJOB-N and Neuroethics.
Hence, contrary to the view communicated for example in the study of  Gooray and Ferguson (2013)  our data not only indicates that Enhancement is actually one of the smallest subject-categories of neuroethics, but also that it has been an issue even before 2002. What is more, our data also shows that the subject-category Enhancement did not increase in a greater proportion compared to other subjectcategories after 2002. This finding is surprising, considering the fact that those, who maintained the MND since 2008 were primarily engaged with research on cognitive enhancement and were hence particularly aware of the literature in this specific subfield of neuroethics. This entanglement of the researchers with cognitive enhancement obviously did not lead to an overrepresentation of enhancement literature in the MND.