Bibliographic record
Abstract
À l’heure où les communautés bio-hackers des quatre coins de la planète s’approprient le monde des biotechnologies, cet article propose de réfléchir à leur rapport aux matériaux vivants. Il s’agit de saisir certaines particularités de ces derniers à partir de leur existence technique en tant que vivant biotechnologique (VB). À la croisée des études sur les sciences et de la théorie critique, l’article propose une analyse de discours d’entretiens conduits auprès de bio-hackers, majoritairement canadiens. L’analyse fait ressortir le mode d’existence du VB selon trois figures principales : l’imaginaire bio-hacker du VB conçu comme la bio-infrastructure commune au bio-hacking, à la biologie synthétique et à la bioéconomie ; le défi que les finalités normatives biologiques constituent pour la matérialisation du VB ; et la fabrique d’une distinction inégalitaire, souvent circonstancielle, entre des organismes, qui participe à la légitimation sociale du mode d’existence du VB.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".