Bibliographic record
Abstract
Located at the leading edge of reconfigurations of the contemporary academic world, biomedical research is a priority area for the sociology of science. A number of studies describe in turn the rise of the “scientist entrepreneur,” the blurring of the traditional boundaries between science and industry, or even the abandonment of the normative principles supposed to characterize the scientific community. This article proposes to shed light on these reconfigurations by studying a new field of biomedical research—the human embryonic stem cell (hESC)—and a key player in France: the Institut des Cellules Souches pour le Traitement et l’Etude des Maladies Monogeniques (Institute of Stem Cell Therapy and Exploration of Monogenic Diseases) or I-STEM. Reviving a tradition dedicated to the sociological study of scientific specialties, the article analyses the emergence of I-STEM from the dual perspective of the temporalities that coincide in a single project and its territorial location in the Evry Biopark. By adopting a broader conception of the regulation of science, the article demonstrates the importance for sociologists not to interpret the logic of scientific action through too simplistic a framework, and from an international comparison between France and Britain, the need to replace a purely transgressive conception of technoscience with an approach centred on the organizational regime of scientific work.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.986 | 0.921 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".