MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991157804 · doi:10.1017/s2475262200008923

The Value of Fossil Collections

2000· article· en· W2991157804 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Paleontological Society Special Publications · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeological Research and Protection
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValue (mathematics)PleasureEveryday lifeMaterialismAestheticsPower (physics)Exchange valuePain and pleasurePosition (finance)SociologyEnvironmental ethicsEconomicsEpistemologyLawPsychologyNeoclassical economicsComputer sciencePolitical scienceArtPhilosophyAdam smith

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“VALUE,” WROTE John Ruskin (1862), “is the life-giving power of anything; cost, the quantity of labor required to produce it; price, the quantity of labor which its possessor will take in exchange for it”. These distinctions see obvious enough. Yet in the bustle of everyday modern life in a highly materialistic society, it seems increasingly difficult to separate “value” from “cost” and “price”. How do we — as individuals, groups, or a society — assign a value to something? What, in fact, do we value? A glance at television or a popular magazine offers some clues. We value things economic, those associated with “making a living”, with solving the everyday problems of making one's way in the world. We value things that enhance our position or status in society, or that make our lives easier or give us pleasure or diversion. We value things that make our lives meaningful. We do not tend to necessarily value what's good for us, at least not simply because someone tells us it is.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.228 · 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