Why Dissent Matters: Because Some People See Things the Rest of Us Miss, by William Kaplan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rachel Louise Carson was an American author and marine biologist who is widely credited with advancing the global environmental movement. In the late 1950s, Carson turned her attention from nature writing to conservation—specifically, towards problems that she believed were linked to synthetic pesticides—and gathered evidence about a looming environmental disaster. The result was the book Silent Spring, which brought environmental concerns to the attention of an unprecedented portion of the American public. Both Carson and her book were met with fierce opposition by agriculture and chemical companies. These companies argued that restrictions placed on pesticides, specifically DDT, caused tens of millions of needless deaths and hampered agriculture. In the face of such criticism, Carson fought back and stood up to those who did not share her values or see things the way she did, urging society to stop and listen to what she was saying.
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 | 0.008 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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".