Rosario Esparza, Sr., and Consuelo Esparza, Plaintiffs v. Pierre Foods, n/k/a Advanced Pierre Foods, Inc., Defendant.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on scientific, social scientific, and technical knowledge is increasingly focused on changes in institutionalized fields, such as the commercialization of university-based knowledge. Much less is known about how organizations produce and promote knowledge in the 'thick boundaries' between fields. In this article, I draw on 53 semi-structured interviews with Canadian think-tank executives, researchers, research fellows, and communication officers to understand how think-tank knowledge work is linked to the liminal spaces between institutionalized fields. First, although think-tank knowledge work has a broadly utilitarian epistemic culture, there are important differences between organizations that see intellectual simplicity and political consistency as the most important marker of credibility, versus those that emphasize inconsistency. A second major difference is between think tanks that argue for the separation of research and communication strategies and those that conflate them from beginning to end, arguably subordinating research to demands from more powerful fields. Finally, think tanks display different degrees of instrumentalism toward the public sphere, with some seeking publicity as an end in itself and others using it as a means to influence elite or public opinion. Together, we can see these differences as responses to diverging principles of legitimacy.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Science and technology studies Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | low |
| gpt | Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".