MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1574706557

Accelerating Population Pressure or Overpopulation

2005· article· en· W1574706557 on OpenAlex
Arne Næss

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Trumpeter · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental, Ecological, and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverpopulationPopulationFrontierPoint (geometry)Ecological crisisConsumption (sociology)Process (computing)EcologyEnvironmental ethicsEconomicsPositive economicsSociologyPolitical scienceLawSocial scienceComputer sciencePhilosophyBiologyMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It was for a long time my hypothesis that nearly everybody who supports the deep ecology movement would accept point 4 of the 8 points. Many were enthusiastic that such a dangerous point of view was stated explicitly. Others said that the 8 points should not contain an opinion about the main cause of the ecological crisis, or the main process to get the crisis reduced as soon as possible. They said that to mention the population issue as it is done in Point 4 inevitably makes people think that overpopulation is sorted out both to specify main cause and main remedy. To specify this was not my intention in 1973, when I pointed to unsustainable ways of production and consumption. The ecofeminist and social ecologist movements specialize in definite causes and remedies. (Mostly too narrowly, I feel. History is very complex and realistic remedies will be complex, the frontier is long.)

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.249 · 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