Time, timing and narrative at the interface between UK technoscience and policy
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
Questions of timing, phasing and sequence have been central to recent critiques of science policy-making, which have highlighted sustained disjunctures between the relevance and importance given to different stakeholders at different moments in the policy-making process. In this paper we expand upon this recent ‘upstream/downstream’ literature through a case study analysis of xenotransplantation (XTP), one of the defining controversies of 1990s UK biotechnology regulation. Drawing on insights from the sociology of expectations we trace the emergence of a UK policy narrative concerning the future of XTP and explore how the policy role became narrowly defined as a process of ‘reflex regulation’, based upon technologically determinist assumptions and producing extremely short-term decision-making. We draw attention to the concrete costs of this delineation of the policy role and reveal that it is neither inevitable or necessary, by considering contrasts between the policy temporalities of the UK, Canada and the Netherlands.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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