Expose and protect: reflections on experimental scientific practices based on a case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Based on ethnographic research, the article reflects on experimental surgical practices related to the development of ventricular assist devices (the so-called ‘artificial heart’). Focusing on the relationships between animal models and the numerous professionals involved in the experiment, the hypothesis of this article pinpoints the unavoidable game of exposing and protecting all the agents who establish relationships therein, as a condition for understanding and innovating on legitimate grounds. This game, ethnographically followed step by step, meets both scientific and ethical imperatives. The reflection leads us to consider, among other things, the sensitive, decisive character of otherness regarding experimental animals in the course of the experiments. According to the aforementioned hypothesis, this is when notions of participation and disparticipation in the game of otherness with these animal models seem to clarify the economy, simultaneously affective and intelligible, put into practice in the relationships performed therein.
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 | 0.051 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".