Biotechnology 1996-1999 : the years of controversy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout the period 1996-2000, the International Research Group on Biotechnology and the Public has continued its systematic research in investigating the relations between policy making, media coverage and public perceptions. This book presents a timely and detailed mapping of the public reception of biotechnology in 14 European countries, the USA and Canada. It includes time-series analysis of public attitudes interpreted in the context of media coverage and policy making. Since 1996, biotechnology has been the focus of wide-ranging controversies and has achieved enormous public prominence. There have been dramatic developments, such as the commercial exploitation of genetically-modified (GM) crops and foods, which resulted in supermarket boycotts of GM ingredients and conflicts among European Union institutions and member states. Contrasting views on the risks associated with GM foods have attracted the interest of the US government and World Trade Organization, leading to threats of a transatlantic trade war. In the mass media, coverage of biotechnology moved from scientific articles to editorials, news and political sections. Will be of interest to social scientists, researchers, industrialists, activists and policy makers.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".