Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article draws out temporal and spatial affects such as hope and fear, trust and confidence, and assumptions of actors in plant biotechnology development and its regulation by the Federal Government of Canada. These underlie both insider developers' and regulators' hopes and trust, and outsider experts' and publics' anxiety and fear. Etymologically, hope is rooted in actual capacities or dunamis and in latent potency or potentia . Ethnographic interviews among researchers, producers, and regulators of plant biotechnologies in Canada conducted between 2001 and 2003 provide an empirical illustration of this argument. In the regulatory process for plants with novel traits (PNTs), different affective responses (hope, fear, trust) correlate with social insiders and outsiders around biotechnology generally and PNTs specifically. Insiders form a regulatory figuration in Elias's sense of the term. The spatiotemporal qualities of different affects—dunamis here and now versus the distant and future quality of potentia— “torque” discourse, risk-taking behavior, and calculations of standards of precaution.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".