Bibliographic record
Abstract
本文提出了面向 AI 与 Web3 时代的全新治理共识——“爱的证明(Proof of Love, PoL)”。作者认为,爱——作为共情、互惠与创造性合作的伦理力量——是当代技术文明所缺失的核心原则。论文融合区块链治理、去中心化激励机制与伦理哲学,探讨如何以“爱”作为文明共治的新基石,让人类与 AI 在共享价值创造中实现共生。该研究跨越哲学、经济学与系统设计,旨在重新定义智能、治理与文明的意义。 This paper proposes Proof of Love (PoL) as a new ethical and governance consensus for the age of AI and Web3. It argues that love—understood as empathy, reciprocity, and creative cooperation—is the missing principle in current technological civilization. By integrating blockchain governance, decentralized incentives, and ethical philosophy, the study outlines how PoL can serve as a foundation for a new “Love-based Civilization,” where human and AI co-govern through shared value creation. The work bridges philosophy, economics, and systems design, aiming to redefine the meaning of intelligence, governance, and civilization itself.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".