MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W610159414

The Political and Moral Economies of Science: A Case Study of Genomics in Canada and the United Kingdom

2007· article· en· W610159414 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsPolitical scienceReciprocity (cultural anthropology)Government (linguistics)Context (archaeology)Political economyMoral economyEconomicsEnvironmental ethicsSociologyEconomySocial scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The term political economy describes how nations organize the production and use of wealth. Following from this definition, the political economy of science can be understood as the role that scientific activity plays, or is thought to play, in national economies and the related policies and agendas that structure this contribution. A moral economy, according to Robert E. Kohler (1), is based on the social rules and customs that regulate a community. Norms about merit, reciprocity, reward, professionalism and acceptable scientific practice all contribute to the moral economy of science. Although the political and moral economies of science operate on vastly different scales, I argue, using the case of genomics in Canada and the United Kingdom, that they are co-produced. The concept of co-production (2) is used here to emphasize that both the high-level science policy context and the local culture of genomics influence each other and that neither can be understood as the primary driver for change. Rather, evidence shows that change is occurring simultaneously at both levels and that, in the case of genomics, there is a resonance between shifting science policy and shifting scientific culture. In both Canada and the United Kingdom, science is increasingly aligned with economic growth and national innovation. Scientific activity has long been assumed to provide economic and social benefits. However, starting in the 1980s, government policies and funding regimes, particularly those coming out of the Thatcher government in the United Kingdom, began to emphasis the economic dimension of scientific research. Over the last two decades, science policy agendas in both countries have shifted from supporting research based on assumed, indirect economic and social benefit toward a model that expects direct and demonstrated economic results from research. Changes in the moral economy of science have been demonstrated through studies showing that norms, attitudes, and practices are becoming more entrepreneurial in spirit. In particular, the notion of personal financial gain is becoming compatible with traditional norms around scientific merit and reward. The adoption of entrepreneurial attitudes and activities is by no means universal; however, patenting activity and researcher surveys in the life sciences suggest that a shift in favour of commercially oriented activities is underway. (3) There are a number of bridges that link the political and moral economies of science, allowing them to exert influence on one another. Universities and academic institutions are one of the more obvious points of connection. Institutional norms and infrastructure may be oriented to either encourage or discourage entrepreneurial activities. Evidence shows that most academic institutions in Canada and the United Kingdom are consciously attempting to do the former by increasing resources allocated to technology transfer activities. (4) Another bridge between the political and moral economies of science is provided via government funding regimes. Economically oriented activities are directly supported by funding programs that require industry-university collaboration, matching funds, or the demonstration of economic or social benefit as a condition of funding. Alternately, funding regimes may indirectly encourage commercial activities through specific funding programs and selection criteria. In both Canada and the United Kingdom, the research councils, which are the government bodies responsible for funding university research, have, over the past two decades, become increasingly concerned with the economic impact of the research they fund. (5) Finally, a connection is created between the political and moral economies of science by use of science indicators (measuring, for instance, the impact of scientific publications or university patenting activity) to gage national economic performance and potential. As a result of this practice, scientific reputations and activities are being directly linked with national performance measures. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.305
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0130.049
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.187
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it