Disagreement on foundational principles of biological aging
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
To gain insight into how researchers of aging perceive the process they study, we conducted a survey among experts in the field. While highlighting some common features of aging, the survey exposed broad disagreement on the foundational issues. What is aging? What causes it? When does it begin? What constitutes rejuvenation? Not only was there no consensus on these and other core questions, but none of the questions received a majority opinion-even regarding the need for consensus itself. Despite many researchers believing they understand aging, their understanding diverges considerably. Importantly, as different processes are labeled as "aging" by researchers, different experimental approaches are prioritized. The survey shed light on the need to better define which aging processes this field should target and what its goals are. It also allowed us to categorize contemporary views on aging and rejuvenation, revealing critical, yet largely unanswered, questions that appear disconnected from the current research focus. Finally, we discuss ways to address the disagreement, which we hope will ultimately aid progress in the field.
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) | 0.000 | 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