MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W14813966 · doi:10.32920/22229269

The Problem of Observation

2003· article· en· W14813966 on OpenAlex
Avner Levin

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies in Science
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpistemologyQuality (philosophy)Scientific lawBasis (linear algebra)LawTheoretical physicsSociologyPolitical sciencePhilosophyPhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>An investigation of how law and science are similar. Against the background of proliferation of inquiries into the law of various aspects of science and technology it is worth noting that law and science share not only some interesting superficial analogies but also a deeper, common epistemological basis. More accurately, there are epistemological limits placed on both law and physics that are in all important respects similar. These limits on the 'quality' of knowledge imposed on both physicists and lawyers are known as a Problem of Observation existing in the disciplines of physics and law.</p>

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.151 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHistorical Studies in ScienceFrench-language works237,207