Science, Politics and Science Policy in Canada: Steps Towards a Renewed Critical Inquiry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this essay, the author undertakes a critical review of Canadian science policy. This provides a framework in which to assess the current state of affairs of “science and politics in Canada.” It is shown in what way notions of state-administered science policy, as well as market-driven exchange, are problematic. Special attention is given to the emergence of the concept of innovation, first appearing in the Science Council of Canada’s 1968 Report #4, but now appearing uncritically throughout government documents on science and public policy. The core thesis of the essay, arising out of an analysis of the “essential tension” between the autonomy of science and the authority of politics, is that both the meaning of scientific practice and its relevance for public policy must be shaped by an ongoing critical discussion within civil society — a discussion that must not be dominated by either the State or markets.
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 | 0.036 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.093 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.036 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".