MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128833350 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v2n2p115

Scientific Analysis of the Commonness in Human Civilization

2009· article· en· W2128833350 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yue Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicChaos, Complexity, and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCivilizationEnvironmental ethicsEpistemologyCommon senseSocial scienceSociologyHistoryPolitical sciencePhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contrary with the opinion and idea that the civilization difference induces the civilization conflicts, the commonness of civilization is more important in fact. In the various past researches about the civilization comparison, most scholars emphasized to review and look the differences among different civilizations, and deduced that the differences induced the conflicts. However, the differences among various civilizations are only one aspect of the fact, and on the other hand, the commonness exists among different civilizations. From many aspects such as common system, common earth, common goals, common opportunities, common threats, common benefits and common deficiencies, we scientifically analyzed the commonness among the human civilizations.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicChaos, Complexity, and EducationFrench-language works237,207