Bibliographic record
Abstract
The desire to extend human lifespan has spurred scientific and philosophical interest back to the earliest recorded piece of human literature, the Epic of Gilgamesh, which documents the quest of a mythical king to become immortal. In the intervening years between then and now, and particularly in the last century, human lifespan has increased dramatically. Though it is commonly held that there is an upper biological limit to human lifespan, there are some who believe its recent meteoric rise can continue indefinitely. The story of human lifespan has two largely separate prongs: that of the important advances in sanitation, agriculture and medicine that have effected the greatest change in our life expectancy, and the recurring myth, legend and popular beliefs surrounding greatly advanced or eternal human life. In recent years, the myth and science of life expectancy have coalesced, creating a core group of people who believe that immortality is a technically achievable goal. Such claims have muddied the concept of aging such that it is now commonly described as both a disease process and a fundamental part of life. Hackler C. Extending the life span: Mythic desires and modern dangers. HEC Forum, 2006; 16:182-196. Holliday R. Aging is no longer an unsolved problem in biology. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 2006; 1067:1-9. Rando TA. Stem cells, ageing and the quest for immortality. Nature 2006; 441:1080-1086.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".