MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1739884831

The Essence of Windmill and Chimney as More Environmentally Amenable Than Windturbine and Hydrodam

2015· article· en· W1739884831 on OpenAlex
Sean Soderman

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.

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymath · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy, Ethics, and Existentialism
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChimney (locomotive)WindmillArchitectural engineeringSymbol (formal)Subject (documents)Work (physics)EngineeringComputer scienceMechanical engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chimney technology has wrongly become a symbol of environmental damage. Going beyond this facile symbolism, we find that, using Heidegger’s notions in his work “The Question Concerning Technology,” the essence of chimney technology is rather revealed to ameliorate the negative effects of industrial pollution on the environment. Comparing then the essence of chimney technology to the essence of certain modern technologies commonly labeled “green,” i.e. windturbine and hydrodam, we see that chimney technology is, in essence, more amenable to the environment because it is subject to nature’s elements and forces, and does not challenge them to be revealed for us as standing-reserve.

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 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.388
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.208 · 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