Promesas Y Peligros De Los Avances Tecnológicos (Promises and Threats of Technological Advances)
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
Spanish Abstract: Todos sabemos que la tecnologia basada en la ciencia ha conocido un avance incesante desde los tiempos de Galileo, pero los escepticos tambien saben que, a diferencia de las ciencias, la tecnologia es ambivalente pues, aunque en gran medida es beneficiosa, una parte de ella tambien es danina. Asi, por ejemplo, mientras que la ciencia nuclear ha enriquecido la civilizacion, la ingenieria nuclear produjo los crimenes de Hiroshima y Nagasaki y nos ha vuelto escepticos ante el futuro de la vida en la tierra. Esta ambivalencia axiologica de la tecnologia es el tema de estas paginas. English Abstract: Everyone knows that science-based technology has been advancing relentless since Galileo’s time. But the scientific skeptics also know that, unlike science, technology is ambivalent: while most of it is beneficial, some of it is harmful. For instance, whereas nuclear science has enriched culture, nuclear engineering has made the war crimes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki possible, and it has turned us skeptical about the future of life on Earth. This axiological ambivalence of technology is the subject of this paper.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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