MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052675744 · doi:10.1159/000092654

Public Knowledge, Public Trust: Understanding the ‘Knowledge Deficit’

2006· review· en· W2052675744 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

VenuePublic Health Genomics · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionPublic policyKnowledge managementPublic relationsPolitical scienceEpistemologyComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the 'knowledge deficit' model, which still persists in liberal, technological societies. It is based upon the assumption that expert forms of knowledge, both in the sciences and the humanities, provide a sufficient basis for deciding the most important public policy questions. In this view, public perceptions and beliefs that run counter to this expert knowledge provide unacceptable justifications for public policies. Instead, support of expert knowledge needs to be 'built' through education and public relations strategies. This view is challenged on the basis of basic democratic theory, using the debate about genetically modified maize in Mexico as an example. 'Knowledge deficits' also exist on the side of experts.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.459
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.084 · 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