A distorted regulatory landscape: Genetically modified wheat and the influence of non-safety issues in Canada
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
Drawing on the institutional analysis and development framework, this paper explores the likely influence of socio-economic issues on the processing of the application for the authorization for genetically modified wheat by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) in the period 2002–4. As an attempt to explain why the CFIA regulators asked for additional environmental data relating to the unconfined release of this crop, and refrained from making a regulatory decision, this analysis focuses on the interaction between the rules that frame the formal approval process and the involvement of various actors in a lively social debate. It argues that the flexibility provided by the regulatory decision-making process, combined with the socio-economic issues that were forcefully raised by interest groups, academics and parliamentary committees, created a distorted regulatory landscape that led regulators to further scrutinize the environmental impacts of this seed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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