The second half of the twentieth century saw the emergence of three knowledge-system models: Mode 2 knowledge production, the Triple Helix, and Post-Normal Science (PNS). Today, this emphasis on knowledge use is the focus of such important health movements as evidence-based medicine. Building on the methodological work of Shinn (2002) and the theoretical work of Holzner and Marx (1979), we conducted a bibliometric study of the extent to which the three knowledge-system models are used by researchers to frame problems of health-knowledge use. By doing so, we reveal how these models fit into a larger knowledge system of health and evidence-based decision making. The study results show clearly that although these knowledge models are extremely popular for contextualizing research, there is a distinct lack of emphasis on use of the models in knowledge utilization or evidence-based medicine. We recommend using these models for further research in three specific dimensions of health systems analysis: (a) differences in language use, (b) transformative thinking about health-knowledge functions, and (c) ethical analysis of institutional linkages. IntroductionAnnouncements of the birth of a new type of society proliferated in the period following World War II. Attempts to name the new society were numerous, and included, among others, post-industrial society, post-modern society, information society, network society, science society, and the knowledge society (Böhme, 1997;Feather, 1998). A common feature of all these concepts was the emphasis on an increased role for knowledge, particularly scientific and technical knowledge, in the domains of economic development, public policy-making, and professional practice (Dickinson, 2003).Not surprisingly, efforts to understand and manage knowledge-related processes also became increasingly explicit and important. Machlup (1962) was the first to measure the production and distribution of knowledge in the United States in an attempt to empirically demonstrate the scope and significance of the emerging knowledge economy (Sohng, 1996, p. 77; Neelameghan, 1999, p. 111). The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the World Bank continue these efforts on an international level (Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, 2004; World Bank, 2005).Also starting in the 1960s, a substantial body of literature developed that was focused on the transfer and utilization of scientific knowledge in the context of policy-making and professional practice.1 This literature identified numerous facilitators and impediments to those processes. These included the nature of the research and decision-making processes, the content of research knowledge, and the form and media of its dissemination. This research showed that decision makers consistently reported being unaware of the existence of relevant research, or that they were aware that relevant research existed, but it was physically, cognitively, or temporally inaccessible to them, or that they knew that research exist...

This paper is the first to describe the structure and content of the English language social science literature on food safety in China. To do this research we systematically searched Web of Science and Scopus, the most comprehensive indexes, using the terms "Food Safety" AND "China" OR "Chinese". To focus our search results, we used the index features available on Web of Science and Scopus, and limited results to the English language, peer-reviewed journal articles, social sciences, and published in the period of 2009 to 2015. This resulted in 272 selected journal articles, with a final data set of 185 articles for review. A food safety system model we developed was used to classify and present the findings derived from content analysis of abstracts, titles, and keywords. Our findings show that the research reviewed is unevenly distributed across the components of the food safety system model. The greatest proportions of the literature reviewed focused on consumers, primary and secondary producers and products, and government legislators and regulators, respectively. Smaller proportions focused on food wholesalers, retailers, researchers, educators, and the media. Few of the articles reviewed used a model of the food safety system. None identified an explicit knowledge transfer strategy.