Bibliographic record
Abstract
We look at a collection of conjectures with the unifying message that smaller social systems, tend to be less complex and can be aligned better, towards fulfilling their intended objectives. We touch upon a framework, referred to as the four pronged approach that can aid the analysis of social systems. The four prongs are:1. The Uncertainty Principle of the Social Sciences2. The Objectives of a Social System or the Responsibilities of the Players3. The Need for Smaller Organizations4. Redirecting Unintended OutcomesSmaller organizations mitigating the disruptive effects of corruption is discussed and also the need for organizations, whose objective is to foster the development of other smaller organizations. We consider a way of life, which is about respect for knowledge and a desire to seek it. Knowledge can help eradicate ignorance, but the accumulation of knowledge can lead to overconfidence. Hence it becomes important to instill an attitude that does not knowledge too seriously, along with the thirst for knowledge. All of this is important to create an environment that is conducive for smaller organizations and can be viewed as a natural extension of studies that fall under the wider category of understanding factors and policies aimed at increasing the welfare or well-being to society.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".