IUPAC Announces the 2021 Top Ten Emerging Technologies in Chemistry
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
Abstract IUPAC has released the results of its 2021 search for the Top Ten Emerging Technologies in Chemistry. The goal of this project is to showcase the transformative value of Chemistry and to inform the general public on the potential of the chemical sciences to foster the well-being of Society and the sustainability of our Planet. Following the same guidance as it did last year, the Jury The Jury was an international group of objective and unbiased experts who reviewed and discussed a pool of nominations, and ultimately selected the final top ten. The following comprised the panel of judges for the 2021 Top Ten Emerging Technologies in Chemistry: Chair, Michael Droescher, (German Association for the Advancement of Science and Medicine), Jorge Alegre-Cebollada (Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Cardiovasculares, Spain), Sophie Carenco (French National Center for Scientific Research, France), Javier García Martínez (Universidad de Alicante, Spain), Ehud Keinan (Technion, Israel), Rai Kookana (CSIRO Land & Water, Australia), Greg Russell (University of Canterbury, New Zealand), Ken Sakai (Kyushu University, Japan), Natalia P. Tarasova (D. I. Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology, Russia), and Bernard West (Life Sciences Ontario, Canada). , a selection of international experts, identified different emerging technologies, scientific advances in between a discovery and a fully-commercialized ideas, with outstanding capacity to open new opportunities in chemistry, sustainability, and beyond. The 2021 finalists are (in alphabetical order):
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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