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
In the latest issue of the "History of Science and Technology" journal, publications by authors from Canada, Ghana, Indonesia, Romania, Ukraine and Uzbekistan are presented. As always, we try to offer a wide variety of topics and areas and follow current trends in the history of science and technology. In this issue, you will find interesting research that explores various aspects of the development of science and technology in different countries. The authors investigate different periods of history, ranging from ancient times to the present, and delve into both well-known events and lesser-known aspects that are worth studying. We are grateful to all the authors for their work and contribution to the understanding of the history of science and technology. We would also like to express our gratitude to our reviewers and the editorial team for their diligence and professionalism in the selection and preparation of these fascinating articles. We hope that this issue of the journal will serve as a source of new knowledge, discoveries, and insights for our readers. We wish you an enjoyable and fruitful reading experience! And, of course, we welcome your new submissions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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