MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983699539 · doi:10.1080/01616840802115033

The Next Forty‐Nine Years

2008· article· en· W1983699539 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Wes Jackson

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Library Quarterly · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental, Ecological, and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsArgument (complex analysis)Power (physics)TruckStatement (logic)Resource (disambiguation)Energy (signal processing)Inclusion (mineral)Operations researchSociologyPolitical scienceEngineeringSocial scienceLawComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is expanded from a commencement address delivered by author Wes Jackson to graduating seniors at Washington College, Chestertown, Maryland, May 20, 2007. It adds detail to his longstanding argument that the environmental majority is mendaciously optimistic in suggesting that new—and sometimes still uninvented—technology will solve the world's food and energy problems. Jackson lays out statistics on how fast the world is using up its energy sources, noting that biofuels such as agriculture‐based ethanol will provide insufficient energy to power U.S. cars and trucks even if we use all of the food in the world to produce motive power. Jackson's previous article, “Conceptual Revolutions: Who Needs Them? Why?” was published in Public Library Quarterly 24‐3 (2005). The two articles form an intertwined statement on world resource limitations and opportunities. These articles were selected for inclusion in PLQ for the fundamentally different view they offer library professionals on the biofuels‐and‐ecology debate, in the hopes of balancing competing points of view in library collections.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1680.096

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Library QuarterlySame topicEnvironmental, Ecological, and Cultural StudiesFrench-language works237,207