Bibliographic record
Abstract
INFO: Moonsanto's Dogme (Part 1-4) CDEP was limited to 100 copies and deleted a few weeks after its initial release in 2000. PRESS RELEASE: Moonsanto is here questioning with the help of their best mastered tool (music) the use of so-called junk science (biotechnologies, genetics etc) in the contemporary era. What the essence of being when confronted to manipulations of its most nature. In a situation when technology is helping to modify or to fastened existing power connections is science still able to propose us a project for humanity? But don't let the very solemn subject fool you, for this limited edition disc total artistic freedom was given by Hushush to Moonsanto. The content is totaly delirious. Strange voice treatement with cut-ups experiments are creating the particular athmosphere of this very fin de siècle kind of project. Humor is always present and you have to read between the lines to actually catch the whole idea behind this release. ABOUT MOONTANTO: Moonsanto (Belgium / Canada / Netherlands) Moonsanto's four junk scientists are actually two of Ambre's members, C-drik (Crno Klank, Axiome...) and John N Sellekaers (Xingu Hill, Torsion, Internal, Snog...) with Marc Medea and J.R. Rob(u)rang from the Silk Saw/Ultraphonist possee. http://www.moonsanto.org/
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 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) | 0.464 | 0.022 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".