Cultures, contexts and commitments in the governance of controversial technologies: US, UK and Canadian publics and xenotransplantation policy development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While there has been considerable interest in public participation in new and controversial technologies in the last two decades, less attention has been paid to how different ‘publics’ and ‘participation’ are constructed and defined in the context of policy development and the contingencies (historical, cultural, and situational) that can contextualize these processes. This study examines the development of xenotransplantation policy in the US, Canada and the UK in order to understand the emergence of different publics and versions of participation in the social appraisal of a controversial biomedical technology. By examining publics in invited arenas and those that operate in public spaces outside of these official rooms (paying special attention to animal rights and welfare groups), we suggest that a broader understanding can be gained of the nuances in policy trajectories. Contrasting experiences in three case countries with close cultural and historical traditions further elucidate the nature of the framing activities of policy-makers around public participation and the boundary work around different practices that emerged.
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 | 0.022 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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".