MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164125484 · doi:10.1017/s147355042100015x

Space ectogenesis: securing survival of humans and Earth life with minimal risks – reply to Szocik

2021· article· en· W3164125484 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew R. Edwards

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Astrobiology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpace Science and Extraterrestrial Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAstrobiologyExoplanetBioethicsMars Exploration ProgramBiologyPlanetLawPhysicsPolitical scienceAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Assuming that securing the long-term survival of humans and Earth life is a valid goal, we briefly compare the strategies of building standard space colonies, such as on Mars, and embryo space colonization (ESC). In ESC embryos of humans and other Earth species would be sent to exoplanets and raised there via ectogenesis and android assistants. We find that the potential for securing long-term survival is far greater for ESC than for standard colonies, while the bioethical and other risks are far fewer.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.010
Scholarly communication0.0030.011
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0280.066
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of AstrobiologySame topicSpace Science and Extraterrestrial LifeFrench-language works237,207