MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4389967820 · doi:10.1017/9781788212267.004

Potential and actual socio-economic impacts of blockchain

2020· other· en· W4389967820 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlockchainNatural resource economicsEconomicsComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data in qualitative and quantitative forms serve as a necessary foundation for social, political and economic life. Data can only unfold its true power if it is structured and put into a context to provide users with useful information for decision-making processes. By giving order to data, ledgers like blockchains, centralized databases or analogue registers allow ownership to be tracked – a function that is fundamental to the idea of property and modern society. Ledgers provide a record that coincides with the collective belief of a current state of affairs among members in a society. By introducing the idea of credit, ledgers became even more powerful by tracking who owes what to whom. Essentially, ledgers provide evidence for any change in the status quo and can be referred to during any dispute. Ledgers are fundamental to the organization of human affairs (Berg et al . 2018). The oldest forms of ledgers date back to Babylonian temples. Ledger technologies have constantly evolved with double-entry bookkeeping and digital databases being the most notable breakthroughs of the modern era. Without them, modern economic and social infrastructure such as complex corporations, markets, administrations and governments could not exist. Not only do all organizations and institutions rely on storing and updating data in trustworthy ledgers, from the registration of births and deaths to home ownership, mortgages, credit cards and mobile phone contracts, our entire modern society is based on records and ledgers. The maintenance of today's ledgers is regularly provided by the state and large corporations and all share one important characteristic: centralization. There is one master ledger or database that is considered to hold the absolute truth. This provides enormous efficiency, since updates to the ledger only need to be conducted once in the central ledger by just one bookkeeper. At the same time, this bestows the central bookkeeper with enormous power, and it took centuries to develop political systems of checks and balances that prevent the wildest forms of misuse of this power. But even in modern democracies, the risk of exclusion is a constant threat to minorities. Apart from the risks that come with such power of central authority, centralized ledgers are inherently fragile, and the record can still be lost.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.012
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.002

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.212 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security→French-language works237,207→