Accounting for expertise: Wynne and the autonomy of the lay public actor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper argues that the public understanding of science has eliminated the understanding gap between experts and the public, but erected an ontological gap in its place. Experts are conceived of as unreflexive, but lay public actors as reflexive. To provide a concrete grounding for this claim, this paper offers a conceptual analysis of Brian Wynne's work on the public understanding of science. Wynne's work intersects theorizing about late modernity (explored via a comparison with Beck's and Giddens') and debates about the role of experts and the public in decision-making (explored via a comparison to Collins and Evans). I show that Wynne's work, as with Beck's and Giddens', and Collins and Evans', embodies different conceptions of lay actors. In Wynne's work ambivalence arises concerning whether social identities or social relationships ground the theoretical account. I suggest the tension arises because of the general desire of the social science analyst to preserve the autonomy of the lay actor.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Science and technology studies Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
| gpt | Science and technology studies Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
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 | 0.021 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".