Science and society in the 21st century. A quarter of a century later
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twenty-five years have passed since the death of Nikolai Vladimirovich Vasiliev (1930–2001), the famous Russian scientist, philosopher and thinker, but the fruits of his foresight continue to surprise and amaze with their accuracy and insight. This article is devoted to a brief analysis of the situation in which humanity found itself at the turn of the century and changes that contributed to the development of civilization. Nikolai Vladimirovich Vasiliev believed that “one of the signs of the immaturity of earthly civilization is not only the disharmony of the technogenic and moral process, but also the level of development of the humanities, biological and technical sciences in modern society.” The article analyzes the parallels of events predicted by N.V. Vasiliev and taking place at present. Biomedicine is considered as a “saving vector of further achievements of developing humanity in the 21st century for improving technologies of disease prevention and health restoration, and maintaining healthy longevity” (Vasiliev N.V., 2001). Surprisingly, the concepts of the development of world processes, relationships of different populations, as well as the tendencies of the development of humanity predicted by N.V. Vasiliev, find their place. in this article, the main attention will be paid to the problem of heterogeneity of humanity, ambiguity of humanity development prospects, and biological and biomedical aspects of science development.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".