The pipeline and the porcupine : alternate metaphors of the physician-industry relationship.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Industry and medicine share a complicated relationship that engenders a considerable degree of controversy. Although they share a relationship, industry and medicine have different perspectives toward their involvement with each other. Industry conceives of medicine as one aspect of the "drug pipeline", a larger set of relationships that is necessary for producing and marketing products. In contrast, select physicians refer to medicine's relationship with industry as "dancing with the porcupine", an inherently difficult and dangerous activity. This paper compares the "pipeline" and "porcupine" metaphors, and draws upon ethnographic data from fieldwork conducted among clinical neuroscientists at a Canadian medical school to further elucidate the perspectives of physicians toward industry and the nature of the physician-industry relationship. The paper argues that the physician-industry relationship is akin to a type of gift-exchange known as a total prestation, and that this form of total prestation is part of a strategy of capital reconversion.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".