Bibliographic record
Abstract
Until the first quarter of the twentieth century it looked obvious that mankind would continue to exist for all time to come. Development of nuclear weapons compelled man to get worried about the possibility of extinction of the human race. Increase in the population, resulting in environmental pollution and accompanied by limited resources, has been the major cause of the worries human are faced today. Naturally in this context, the question arises whether the present generation has an obligation to future generations so that our sacrifice could ensure the continued existence of the human race, preventing it from future extinction. People have started pondering over this question since there are events that could threaten human survival. Since the existence of future generations in many ways depend on what we do now, the question whether or not we should try to prevent the extinction of mankind is an important issue, not only of pure academic interest but with direct consequences on many contemporary problems as well. The central question in this discourse seems to be whether we, as the present generation, have any moral obligation and to what extent we have the duty, if we have any duty at all, to the future generation, so that it would be morally incumbent for us to make sacrifices now to bring happy people in the world or to avoid them from being brought to the world.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".