MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046542710 · doi:10.1177/0270467607302688

General Article: Technology and the Law: Who Rules?

2007· article· en· W2046542710 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of Science Technology & Society · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Academic Research Areas
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndustrialisationOrder (exchange)Context (archaeology)RestructuringLaw and economicsLawSociologyLegal cultureEnvironmental ethicsPolitical scienceBusinessHistoryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What is the likelihood of controlling technology by means of the law? In traditional societies, the law was deeply embedded in, and dependent on, culture (the totality of human creations for making sense of and living in the world). Industrialization required a complete restructuring of both technology and society, thus engulfing all traditions in a flood of new situations for which there were no precedents. This necessitated a growing reliance on reason at the expense of culture, thereby creating a rational and technical order that evolved with less and less reference to sense (i.e. experience and culture). It is within this context that recent legal transformations must be understood as participating in an order of non-sense. This bodes ill for protecting and helping to ensure a livable, sustainable human future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.094
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it