MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4233303120 · doi:10.1017/9781108348539.013

Conclusion: Technological Challenges

2019· book-chapter· en· W4233303120 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnology and Society · 2019
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Innovation and Industrial Efficiency
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanityCivilizationWorld historyHistory of technologyGovernment (linguistics)Object (grammar)EngineeringEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceHistoryComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Technology and Society: A World History explores the creative power of humanity from the age of stone tools to the digital revolution. It introduces technology as a series of systems that allowed us to solve real-world problems and create a global civilization. The history of technology is also the history of the intellectual and cultural place of our tools and devices. With a broad view of technology, we can see that some of the most powerful technologies such as education and government produce no physical object but have allowed us to coordinate our inventive skills and pass knowledge through the ages. Yet although all human communities depend on technology, there are unexpected consequences from the use of technology which, as Ede shows, form a crucial part of this rich story.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.182 · 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