Biomedical Conventions and Regulatory Objectivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This special issue of Social Studies of Science centers on the topic of regulation in medicine and, in particular, on the notion of regulatory objectivity, defined as a new form of objectivity in biomedicine that generates conventions and norms through concerted programs of action based on the use of a variety of systems for the collective production of evidence. The papers in the special issue suggest ways in which the notion of regulatory objectivity can be tested, extended, revised, or superseded by more appropriate notions. They insist on the need to examine more closely clinical-therapeutic (and not just clinical-research) activities, and to pay more attention to the activities of regulatory agencies such as the US Food and Drug Administration and to standard-setting organizations. They call attention to the professional and organizational activities surrounding the mobilization of conventions for regulating clinical practices. Finally, they provide material that can help us to think about how analytical notions such as regulatory objectivity may or may not inform interventionist research projects.
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 | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".