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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distributed ledger technology, frequently designated as 'blockchain,' is evolving from its hype phase toward greater maturity and long-term value creation. Although many academic communities were initially slow to grasp the technology's numerous potential implications, meanwhile a substantial amount of research is dedicated to investigating the development and impact of blockchain and related technologies. As undertaken, most research projects take a specific homogenous perspective, such as a technical or business viewpoint. To date, blockchain research studies are largely missing a bridge between and across academic disciplines. Given the manifold implications of blockchain technology, a fruitful crossdisciplinary exchange is therefore needed. In this paper, we bring together researchers with varying expertise to provide a vision into what may be next in terms of concepts, applications, and research agendas. We consider business, economic, societal, legal, technical, and philosophical viewpoints and propose multiple research questions as well as hypotheses arising from these diverse viewpoints. Simultaneously, we challenge various academic communities to tackle some of the most crucial issues of current blockchain research and to develop a solid foundation for future exploration.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it