Notice bibliographique
Résumé
I. Introduction Although there is a broadening social interest in the development of a powerful and general nanotechnology, the public discourse to date has largely avoided a comprehensive examination of its social dimensions, focussing instead on what is and is not scientifically possible. In this regard, much attention has been paid to the feasibility of Richard Feynman's famous 1959 vision, i.e., whether is possible to manufacture complex molecules atom-by-atom. (1) Whether Feynman's hunch is correct--that it would be, in principle, possible for a physicist to synthesize any chemical substance that a chemist writes down--has been fiercely debated in the scientific literature and the popular press. most famous version of this debate, the recent point/counterpoint exchange between Richard Smalley and Eric Drexler, (2) illustrates a deep division within the nanotechnology community. Consider the following snippets: Smailey: The central problem see with the nanobot self-assembler then is primarily If the nanobot is restricted to be a water-based life-form, since this is the only way its molecular assembly tools will work, then there is a long list of vulnerabilities and limitations to what can do. If is a non-water-based life-form, then there is a vast area of chemistry that has eluded us for centuries ... Please tell us about this new chemistry. (3) Drexler: [T]o visualize how a nanofactory system works, helps to consider a conventional factory system. technical questions you raise reach beyond chemistry to systems engineering. (4) Smalley: I see you have now walked out of the room where had led you to talk about real chemistry, and you are now back in your mechanical world. am sorry we have ended up like this. For a moment thought we were making progress. But, no, you don't get are still in a pretend world where atoms go where you want because your computer program directs them to go there. (5) Drexler: Some chemists with careers tied to the old paradigm (based on random molecular motion in liquids) seem confused and threatened by this different and more powerful approach. ... Members of the old guard instead have assured one another that MNT is 'an impossible, childish fantasy'--in short, that there is nothing to learn. Having failed to master the basic principles of MNT, they see its revolutionary promise and dangers as false, and try urgently to dismiss it. (6) Smalley: You and people around you have scared our children. don't expect you to stop, but hope others in the chemical community will join with me in turning on the light, and showing our children that, while our future in the real world will be challenging and there are real risks, there will be no such monster as the self-replicating mechanical nanobot of your dreams. (7) above compilation of soundbytes from the public exchanges between Smalley and Drexler over the past few years is not meant to provide full coverage, nor even a summary of their scientific positions. Quite to the contrary, these remarks were very purposefully selected to demonstrate that there are other things at play besides the testing of hypotheses--that this is not mere scientific discourse. While this debate has been extremely influential within scientific circles, is suggested that such discussion is not particularly useful in the broader policy arena. In our view, despite their good intentions, this is not the best way for prominent scientists to assist in the development of appropriate regulatory structures for nanotechnology. This type of rhetorical exchange is not the best enabler of sound policy and planning. Although the development of sound social policy about a given technology must certainly commence with considerations about what is presently foreseeable, in this brief article we suggest that is also important to contemplate possibilities that are not necessarily congruent with today's forecasts. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».