MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1856968727 · doi:10.31219/osf.io/fejvm

On the relation between plausibility logic and the maximum-entropy principle: a numerical study

2019· preprint· en· W1856968727 on OpenAlex

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
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStatistical Mechanics and Entropy
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrinciple of maximum entropyDiceThrowingMathematicsCalculus (dental)Mathematical economicsStatisticsPhysicsClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What is the relationship between plausibility logic and the principle of maximum entropy? When does the principle give unreasonable or wrong results? When is it appropriate to use the rule 'expectation = average'? Can plausibility logic give the same answers as the principle, and better answers if those of the principle are unreasonable? To try to answer these questions, this study offers a numerical collection of plausibility distributions given by the maximum-entropy principle and by plausibility logic for a set of fifteen simple problems: throwing dice.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStatistical Mechanics and EntropyFrench-language works237,207