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
Abstract It is argued that the legitimacy of an emergent technology, such as nanotechnology, depends on its ability to develop a narrative that mobilises and integrates a number of pre‐existing narrative scripts. In the case of nanotechnology, especially in its NBIC variant (i.e. the convergence of Nano, Bio, Information technology and the Cognitive sciences), the narrative types include science as transcendence, risk, hype, social accountability, ELSI (Ethical Legal and Social Implications) and Science Fiction. This article draws on a number science studies fields to show how components from each of these narrative types make their appearance in the discourse of nanotechnology, but also how they are ordered and stabilised around a key metaphor: practitioners of nanotechnology as master builders. This metaphor links nanotechnology to Science Fiction as a key site for the construction of alternative worlds, and also to the above‐mentioned narrative scripts. In the conclusion, some troubling implications of how nanotechnology is currently legitimated are highlighted.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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