MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1561951617 · doi:10.1109/ktsc.1995.569149

Knowledge and sustainability: can the planet survive human cognition?

2002· article· en· W1561951617 on OpenAlexaff
Laurent Leduc

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEarth Systems and Cosmic Evolution
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiosphereConsciousnessCreativityUnconscious mindCognitionSustainabilityProcess (computing)PsychologyCognitive scienceEcologyAstrobiologyComputer scienceSocial psychologyBiologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Earth has run a successful biosphere for about three billion years. While the Earth process has experienced both periods of stability and periods of transition the overall process has been one of growing creativity and complexification. The emergence of human consciousness and reflective thought offered a unique mode of planetary self-awareness and self-expression. Can the planet successfully integrate the consciousness to which it has given birth? Can it survive the emergence of human thinking and incorporate it into its ongoing creativity? I explore the human presence and human activity as a subset of the more comprehensive activity of the biosphere. I consider both the risks and benefits of human cognition in the short and longer term. The stability of the biosphere which is ensured by the unconscious efforts of millions of species provides a platform on which or in which the human species can explore its creative potentialities.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.026
Scholarly communication0.0120.016
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 topicEarth Systems and Cosmic EvolutionFrench-language works237,207