MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985824934 · doi:10.1142/s2010194511000110

COSMOLOGICAL MEASURES WITH VOLUME AVERAGING

2011· article· en· W1985824934 on OpenAlex
Don N. Page

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

VenueInternational Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoltzmann constantVolume (thermodynamics)WeightingStatistical physicsUniverseMeasure (data warehouse)Inflation (cosmology)MistakeTheoretical physicsPhysicsArgument (complex analysis)Boltzmann equationMathematicsAstrophysicsComputer scienceQuantum mechanicsMedicineData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been common for cosmologists to advocate volume weighting for the cosmological measure problem, weighting spatial hypersurfaces by their volume. However, this often leads to the Boltzmann brain problem, that almost all observations would be by momentary Boltzmann brains that arise very briefly as quantum fluctuations in the late universe when it has expanded to a huge size, so that our observations (too ordered for Boltzmann brains) would be highly atypical and unlikely. Here it is suggested that volume weighting may be a mistake. Volume averaging is advocated as an alternative. One consequence may be a loss of the argument that eternal inflation gives a nonzero probability that our universe now has infinite volume.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.728
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.214 · 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