Technology, Trust, and Religion : Roles of Religions in Controversies on Ecology and the Modification of Life
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
What does it mean to be human in a world of technology? What could be the role of religion in responding to the ecological crisis? Should we be concerned about the modification of food, and even of ourselves? Who do we trust to make decisions regarding our common future? What do we use our technology for? These are not questions for experts only. How can the wider public be involved? Do experts and the general public trust each other sufficiently? Or is the public ignorant, in the eyes of the scientists? And are too many engineers narrow minded, according to the general public? The contributors to this timely and necessary volume address expertise, trust and engagement, as we consider our technological condition , religious resources for the ecological crisis , biotechnology , and matters of trust between scientists and the general public. With contributions from leading scholars in the field, including James Miller from Queen's University, Canada and Tony Watling from the University College, London, this book will captivate a range of readers interested in the spirtitual dimension of of our culture and society
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it