MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123065603 · doi:10.1177/0095399707307310

Culture and the Democratization of Risk Management

2007· article· en· W2123065603 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdministration & Society · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal trade, sustainability, and social impact
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemocratizationNeutralityRationalityOrganizational culturePolitical scienceEnvironmental ethicsSociologyPolitical economyPositive economicsDemocracyPoliticsEconomicsLawPublic relationsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article considers culture in the explanation of the gap between North America and Europe in the area of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Thanks to a comparison of Canada and France, the article distinguishes between two cultures of GMO risk management: the culture of managerial rationality (Canada) and the culture of integration (France). The first culture provides proponents of scientific neutrality the tools to preserve itself from external criticisms. In contrast, the second culture creates a proper environment for its contestation from within. When the democratization of science became an issue in the 1990s, the culture of integration transformed itself significantly, allowing debates within risk management processes. This change contributed to the gap between Europe and North America over GMOs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.247 · 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