MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405532637 · doi:10.1017/9781788216524.002

The problem of firepower

2023· other· en· W4405532637 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary History and Strategy
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFirepowerComputer scienceGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“People know what they do; they frequently know why they do what they do; but what they don't know is what what they do does.” Michel Foucault, Madness and Civilization The Promethean moment Since life first emerged from oceans and plants started growing on land surfaces fires have had fuel. It's so obvious that we don't often think about it, but stuff that was once living is what burns. Trees provide firewood. The paper we use to start fires in our coal or wood burning stoves comes from trees. If we use fire starters instead of paper most of them are petroleum based. And petroleum is in fact a deeply buried residue of former life. Mostly we burn fossil fuels. Coal, petroleum and natural gas all come from the remains of decayed living things. Organic material, stuff that was once living, has lots of carbon in it, and burning it produces carbon dioxide gas. Once it collects in the atmosphere it traps heat and warms the world. Oxygen is a by-product of life too, and it is also what is needed to make fire. That and a spark to start a flame so that the process of combining the carbon from organic stuff, things that were once alive, with oxygen in the air, can happen. We will never know exactly how the human use of fire started, but it is a reasonable guess that it started in various places in different ways. What matters, as fire historian Steven Pyne (2021) makes very clear, is that, unlike any other species we learned to start fires. Yes, we have language, and culture, and tools, and religions and lots of other things that we think separate us from other species. But beavers are great hydrological engineers; elephants have complicated communication systems; whales too. Ants and other insects build complex structures. Only us humans start fires. Once we learned that “ignition trick” in Pyne's apt phrase, we could have fires pretty much where and when we wanted them. It is difficult in the rain for sure and fires are hard in a desert or on Arctic ice sheets, far from plants to use for fuel. But nonetheless we could have heat where we needed it much of the time, and that made a difference, a very big one as it turned out.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMilitary History and StrategyFrench-language works237,207