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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have stimulated significant global research and development efforts regarding the reduction in emissions from all point and non-point sources. In addition to technologies that do not use carbon feedstocks or which capture and "permanently" store carbon dioxide (i.e., sequestration), there is considerable worldwide interest for dissociating waste stream carbon dioxide molecules into their constituent carbon and oxygen atoms ("CO2 splitting") as a final "end-of-pipe" treatment option. This document presents a review of on-point issued and applied for patents in the field of carbon dioxide splitting. The findings suggest patents in this area appear to be subject to a higher standard because of the global importance of the carbon dioxide issue. Authorities may be hesitant, on policy grounds, to issue broad-ranging patents for carbon dioxide splitting in order to prevent a worldwide reluctance towards adopting feasible treatment methods because of the high patent licensing costs that may accrue.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it