Bibliographic record
Abstract
The machine has become the Other against which we compare ourselves. Aided by artificial intelligence, computers and robots are starting to surpass humans in the physical, linguistic, and intellectual skills that we once thought defined us as the dominant species. One response by science and technology has been to attempt to enhance humans as cyborgs who are able to keep up with our machine Others. More extreme responses are envisioned by transhumanists who anticipate that we will become a near-immortal transhuman species, even if it means transferring our consciousness to a robot or computer. At the same time, some are working on Distributed Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) that are run by autonomous software, cryptocurrencies, and smart contracts. DAOs and increasingly autonomous robots raise additional questions of whether these entities can become legal nonhuman persons who might have rights and responsibilities similar to human beings and corporations. This prospect raises further issues about who or what controls the global economy and what will be the fate of humans in various occupations. The paper concludes with a consideration of the implications of these developments for consumer research.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".