Research “in the wild” and the shaping of new social identities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines new forms of techno-science-society interactions, in which non-scientists work with scientists to produce and disseminate knowledge. The term “research in the wild” is coined to name a special version of this new phenomenon. The primary illustration for this new form of research is connected with the Association Française contra les Myopathies (AFM), the history of which is particularly suitable for exploring certain mechanisms at work in the co-production of scientific knowledge and social identities. The article first compares laboratory research with research in the wild, emphasizing patient interest in maintaining control over cooperation. It then notes the intimate interrelations between the construction of patient identities and the collective form of research in which they participate. Finally, it examines the role of genetics, both as it is integrated into the construction of the collective, and also into the production of mechanisms of exclusion—the reverse side of the constitution of a collective identity.
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 | 0.028 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.158 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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, 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".