The Construction of General Public Interest: Risk, Legitimacy, and Power in a Public Hearing
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The decisions of the economic actors in late modern society produce risks in addition to products and services. Thus, the parties likely to be affected by those decisions — individuals, communities, and society at large — seek to influence them. Public hearings are a key forum in society where this influence occurs. This paper uses a case study of a hearing to show how public hearings use legitimating practices to enact institutional power although they are commonly portrayed as risk-minimizing democratic mechanisms. Public hearings enact participation that is formal not substantive, create `public good' that serves particular not general interests, and use evaluation which is normative or value-based and not rational. Public hearings thus legitimate government and corporate institutions through the demonstration of citizen participation, general interest, and rational evaluation. These processes enact ideological or image-based legitimation by constructing an image of the general public. This legitimation is illusory but effective for enacting state and corporate power.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it