Biotechnology Unglued: Science, Society, and Social Cohesion By Michael D. Mehta, ed. (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2005)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Biotechnology Unglued, Mehta and his thirteen-member interdisciplinary team, comprising mainly of social scientists using a number of ‘‘case studies’’, explore in nine essays ‘‘how advances in agricultural, medical, and forensic biotechnology may threaten the social cohesiveness of different kinds of communities and at different scales’’. In a way, the project is a successful attempt to underscore the theme of (and imperative for) social accountability of science and bio/technological innovations. This 208-page collection of nine essays in a corresponding number of chapters is a remarkable effort. It is a departure from the traditional concerns regarding biotechnology innovations which, hitherto, emphasized ethics, environmental sustainability, safety, human rights, equity, and global geo-political tensions. These concerns are, however, not completely glossed over. They are implicated in the essayists’ analyses, but not at the expense of the book’s central theme.
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
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".