Emerging Science, Emerging Democracy: Stem Cell Research and Policy in Taiwan
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
Science policymakers in newly democratic Taiwan grapple with a central tension of how to construct policies that both conform to international standards and properly represent Taiwan’s people. Based on more than sixteen months of ethnographic research, over a hundred interviews, and archival data, I examine how stem cell research-related policymaking was assembled in Taiwan. I pay particular attention to the intersections of global and local, and to articulations of democracy, sovereignty, and identity as they relate to stem cell research governance. While much has been written on science and democracy in established democratic societies, relatively little has addressed the relationship between emergent democracies and emergent sciences. I suggest that studies in Taiwan as it transitions from technocratic to democratic authority help to make visible the diverse logics and multiple considerations that shape both biotech and its governance in an emergent science democracy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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