MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086156560 · doi:10.2495/dne-v4-n1-1-10

Questioning the theory and practice of biomimicry

2009· article· en· W2086156560 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A. Marshall, Silvia Lozeva

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Design and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomimeticsEngineeringComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gaining inspiration from nature has a new name: biomimicry. As a supposedly novel technical practice, biomimicry makes promises about solving the world's technological problems and environmental problems simultaneously. After posing questions about the features, assumptions and ambitions of biomimicry, it is concluded that biomimicry might be a productive way to render nature's secrets available for commercial and industrial purposes, but for it to move society towards eco-friendliness as it's supporters often claim, they will have to actively reconstruct the concept with the help from ecocentric ideas.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.178
Scholarly communication0.0140.032
Open science0.0050.009
Research integrity0.0130.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations46
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and EcodynamicsSame topicSustainable Design and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207