Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rachel Carson was instrumental in changing the way the world viewed conservation. Her initial written works demonstrated the idea that humans were not the center of the earth’s ecosystems by describing the environment from the viewpoint of non-human creatures (Cafaro, 2011, para. 45-48). Carson’s most eminent publication, Silent Spring, was released at the beginning of the 1960s (Cafaro, 2011, para. 25). The book advocated Carson’s concept of enlightened anthropocentrism through the insistence that new scientific innovations should be questioned as to why, whether, and for what purpose they are put into practice (Walker & Walsh, 2012, p.19). Another issue sparked by Silent Spring regarded whether humans should alter nature for our purposes or attempt to leave it unchanged (Cafaro, 2011, para. 67). Silent Spring helped to spark a national debate about scientific responsibility, limitations on advances in technology, and chemical pesticides in general (Lear, 2013, p. 1). The fact that her arguments stimulated such intense discussion is a testimony to how influential she truly was. Furthermore, Silent Spring led to the banning of dichlorodiphenyltricholoroethane (DDT) production by 1972, along with the implementation of government regulations to safeguard the environment (Hecht, 2012, p. 154; Lear, 2013, p. 1). Carson also made individuals realize that what they put into the environment must be regulated in order to keep the effects from haunting them for generations to come. This undeniable truth continues to resonate today.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".