MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171757790 · doi:10.1162/leon_a_00302

Wool is 44% Carbon

2012· article· en· W2171757790 on OpenAlexaff
Seema Goel

Bibliographic record

VenueLeonardo · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Industries and Urban Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWoolCarbon footprintProduction (economics)PoliticsWork (physics)Product (mathematics)Agricultural economicsBusinessGreenhouse gasArchitectural engineeringPolitical scienceEngineeringGeographyEconomicsArchaeologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbon Footprint is one of the Lovely Weather Donegal Residencies projects initiated by Leonardo/Olats and the Regional Cultural Centre of Donegal. It is a process-based work using Inishowen sheep wool and hand spinning as the primary metaphors to articulate the intrinsic relationship between climate change and economics. This project works to rejuvenate the use of local wool and low-tech/slow-tech making by returning the site of production to the individual. This frames the material and making as political acts, de-coupling the link between green house gas emissions and gross domestic product.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.343
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.250 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeonardoSame topicCultural Industries and Urban DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207