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
This paper examines an inflammatory subject - `DNA typing' (or `DNA fingerprinting' as it is popularly called) - to show how credible scientific knowledge is produced through the systematic erasure of uncertainty and random variation. This erasure occurs at the levels of measurement and of group processes. I use the history of DNA typing in the United States as a case study to develop a three-fold argument. First, that objective knowledge is achieved through interactions and social processes that erase the actions of the representing subject from the representations made of the natural world. Second, that this set of social processes and interactions includes normative judgements, but that these judgements do not pose a threat to objectivity: instead, they are what constitute objectivity. Objectivity is attained through personal judgements and evaluations of what is good enough to constitute an objective measurement, or judgements of how big or small a deviation must be to count for or against a particular theoretical interpretation. Third, I argue that measurements, the result of the translation of properties of the natural world into numbers, always have a gap or error between the theoretically predicted measurement and the empirically obtained measurement. At some point this error cannot be reduced any further. The final measurement is the outcome of negotiation and interaction between people and nature. I demonstrate that these judgements, evaluations and negotiations take place within a laboratory, when forensic workers construct estimates of measurement error, and also in negotiations among disparate social groups involved in calculating random match probabilities. Scientific and legal disputes about the construction of measurements and measurement standards for DNA profiling began in the late 1980s, and continued for the better part of a decade. In this paper, the protracted controversy provides especially rich materials for examining the social construction of measurement.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Science and technology studies Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
| gpt | Science and technology studies Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.009 |
| 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