Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accounts of the origins of the genomic commons typically focus on the development of public repositories and data-sharing agreements. This article tells a different story. During the 1990s in the United States, efforts of private companies to prevent the patenting of certain kinds of DNA sequences were essentially a conservative response to shifts in the sociotechnical constitution of the pharmaceutical innovation system, and to the operation of intellectual property as one of the key knowledge control regimes that regulate that system. In this context, the idea of 'the commons' was rehabilitated from earlier tragic theorizations to argue that industry's ability to deliver new pharmaceutical products would be better served if certain kinds of intellectual property were left in the public domain. The genomic commons is not a neutral space of disinterested scientific research that naturally aligns with some abstract 'public good', but is part of an innovation system that has evolved to serve the interests of a range of stakeholders, among which the big pharmaceutical companies enjoy a dominant position.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it