MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133035647

MEDIA RELATIONS - WHY WE NEED TO IMPROVE THE BIOTECH INDUSTRY'SRELATIONS WITH THE MEDIA

2002· article· en· W7133035647 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tania Ewing

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClimate Change Communication and Perception
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedia relationsMedia industryPrint mediaGovernment (linguistics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the first Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) meeting, in Toronto in 1994, the organisers had to hire a public relations firm to get members of the media to attend. In comparison, at last year's BIO 2001 meeting held in San Diego over 500 members of the press were registered and the organisers are expecting even greater media attention this year. In less than a decade the media has gone from being cynical, nervous or uninterested in biotechnology to embracing it. That is true, at least in the US, where there is a fledgling symbiotic relationship between the biotech industry and the business and science media.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0110.021
Scholarly communication0.0280.043
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0080.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.005

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 head0.424
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.024 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicClimate Change Communication and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207