Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In this article, I examine the public testimonies of expert witnesses during a Canadian federal commission charged with investigating the reasons for dramatic declines of sockeye salmon returning to British Columbia's Fraser River in 2009. These testimonies were intended to provide a foundation of expert opinion upon which clear policy recommendations could be made. However, the hearings were beset by debates over the ability of scientific research to assess harms to wild salmon. Through a discursive analysis of knowledge performances during the commission's hearings, I argue that neoliberalized approaches to evaluating harm and risk enable the production of uncertainty as a political strategy for blocking regulation and letting markets solve ecological crises. Furthermore, my analysis of expert testimonies underscores the degree to which public discussions of science and ecological crises are about the performance of (non)knowledge and why more scientific information has little impact on their outcomes. [uncertainty, risk, ignorance, science, salmon]
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 | 0.010 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".