MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966157167 · doi:10.1177/0963662505047525

Time and the structuring of ritual performance in the xenotransplantation debate

2005· article· en· W1966157167 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

VenuePublic Understanding of Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicXenotransplantation and immune response
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructuringXenotransplantationEnvironmental ethicsBioethicsSociologyPolitical scienceEngineering ethicsLawPublic relationsTransplantationMedicinePhilosophyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advancements in biotechnology provoke fundamental questions about the relationship of humans to the natural world. A crisis arises as the knowledge, practice, and policies concerning biotechnology grow further out of step with each other. This paper examines the role of ritual performance as a means of resolving this crisis, uniting the organic with the socio-moral aspects of science, technology and regulatory policy. Ritual performance is evident in the public discussions of the United States' Secretary's Advisory Committee on Xenotransplantation (SACX). In an attempt to understand the cultural responses to new knowledge, this paper examines the transcripts of several SACX meetings for its ritual elements and references to authority. We find that time is used by scientists to structure ritual performance in a way that guides public policy and attitudes toward xenotransplantation.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.641
Threshold uncertainty score0.803

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.227 · 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