MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2360259737

Ethical Thinking on Sci-tech Risk

2001· article· en· W2360259737 on OpenAlexaff
Xue Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wuhan University of Science and Technology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiomedical and Engineering Education
Canadian institutionsPrairie Improvement Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHigh techPsychologyRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sci tech risk refers to the possibility that the ultimate result of a sci tech activity contradicts its initial goal. The sci tech risk has been following the development of science and technology. With the improvement of man's cognitive ability and the raising of sci tech level, sci tech research areas are expanding, the importance of sci tech application in life is growing and the sci tech risk is increasing. Man needs to consider how to minimize the sci tech risk and negative effects of every sci tech activity.

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)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.065
Scholarly communication0.0100.012
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0130.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.184
Teacher spread0.179 · 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
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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wuhan University of Science and TechnologySame topicBiomedical and Engineering EducationFrench-language works237,207