Canadian Science at the Public/Private Divide: The NCE Experiment
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
This essay understands the relation between politics and science in terms of the public/private and basic/applied distinctions. When policy makers speak of capturing the benefits of public research today, they tend to be talking about market returns rather than social returns. In essence, the social contract between science and society has become an economic contract, and public science has been discursively repositioned as a partner in the national system of innovation and the knowledge-based economy. When the state becomes a partner with academy and industry in the privatization of research, does it make sense to maintain distinctions between public and private, basic and applied? Are they differences that make no difference? If the distinctions collapse or are abandoned, what is Lost? What do the concepts mean today in terms of science policy and scientific practice? In this essay, the author addresses these questions through her research into Canadian science policy and Canada’s Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE) program.
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 | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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