Bibliographic record
Abstract
The idea that there is an emerging “bioeconomy” characterized by the capture of the latent value found in biological material (e.g. cells, tissues, plants, etc.) has become a popular policy agenda since the mid-2000s. A number of scholars have also written about this intersection between the life sciences and capitalism, often drawing on anthropological and sociological perspectives to conceptualize the new socialities, subjectivities, and identities brought about by new biotechnologies. While these studies are undoubtedly a fruitful academic enterprise, they have also left a gap in our understanding of the bioeconomy because they have not discussed knowledge or knowledge production. This article focuses on this immaterial side of the bioeconomy, exploring the geographies of value in the bioeconomy that are constituted by intangible and immaterial resources and labor. The core argument is that value in the bioeconomy is created from geographical processes that both embed immateriality in particular places and, at the same time, abstract it in global standards and regulations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".