The Importance of Fundamental Science for Society: The Success Story of Ozone Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The successful story of ozone research from the discovery of this gas in the laboratory in 1839 to the protection of the stratospheric ozone layer by the Montreal Protocol in 1987 highlights the role and importance of fundamental research. None of the scientists who discovered the chemical nature and properties of ozone, and established its presence in the atmosphere, suspected that humans would be able to destroy a protective stratospheric layer that is essential for life on Earth. None of them had anticipated either that the emissions of pollutants associated with industrial activity and road transportation in urban areas would generate summertime ozone smog events with detrimental health effects and premature mortality. Scientific research has provided the knowledge needed to convince governments to take effective legislation to ban the industrial production of stratospheric ozone depleting agents and reduce the emissions of ozone precursors in the troposphere. This perspective paper calls for enhanced support of a strong fundamental research activity that rewards imagination and protects the scientific community from tight administrative and financial constraints. It highlights the need for scientists to keep a free and independent mind that leads to progress and innovation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".