Promesas Y Peligros De Los Avances Tecnológicos (Promises and Threats of Technological Advances)
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".