MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1585222247 · doi:10.26522/brocked.v12i2.24

Human Adaptation and the Ingenuity Gap

2003· article· en· W1585222247 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueBrock Education Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovation, Sustainability, Human-Machine Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIngenuityAdaptation (eye)Presentation (obstetrics)Experiential learningSociologyEpistemologyEngineering ethicsPsychologyPedagogyEngineeringPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I have been working for many years on the problem of adaptation: how societies or organisms, species, or systems of various kinds adapt to complex and rapid change. In this paper, I will outline my theories and my thinking about adaptation as summarized in the book, The Ingenuity Gap. I will also highlight five aspects of education for the future: education for complexity and what that means; education for reconnection to the micro and macro scales around us; education that increases our respect for experiential knowledge; education that will encourage a recognition of our connectivity through time, from the present into the future; and finally, education to broaden our conception of values. I’ll touch on each one of these points in my presentation today.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.520
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.318 · 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