Bibliographic record
Abstract
The language through which scientific advancements are relayed reflects specific social, political, and cultural needs and expectations, as well as specific constellations of hopes and anxieties. Constructions and applications of atomic discourse provide a material touchstone that is no less tangible than any other aspect of scientific enquiry. The 1970s New Age movement saw the deployment of quantum concepts with the publication of Fritjov Capra's (1975) widely popular The Tao of Physics and Gary Zukav's (1979) The Dancing Wu Li Masters, and from these publications the notions of quantum consciousness and quantum mysticism were born. In the late twentieth and early twenty-first century, the post-New Age concept of quantum healing began to structure a cluster of self-help programs, while at the same time quantum ‘get-rich’ schemes developed a presence on the internet. In these reconfigurations of the quantum, atomic particles have been transformed into vivified ‘agents’ whose unique movements and interactions promise to secure health, happiness, and wealth to self-directed and depoliticized consumers. The commodification inherent in this process extends increasingly to encompass areas of subjectivity—for example, spirituality—that historically have been considered immune to overt commercialization. This extension of the commodification process is evidenced in the way that quantum methodologies are commercialized and then sold to people as a means of advancing, not just their financial interests, but their spiritual well-being as well. The new economy of the atom also emerges from the late-twentieth and early twenty-first century retreat from the public sphere and the attendant atrophy of the public sphere as a site of interpersonal engagement. At the same time, the invocation and application of quantum rhetoric touches on a deep contemporary sense of being unmoored and the need for structured guidance as a means toward a renewed sense of control over one's life. The nomadic quality of quantum language and concepts ensures that, no matter what an individual's complaint or desire, there exists a quantum strategy to ameliorate or realize it. This remarkable adaptability marks twenty-first century quantum language as unique, not only within the discipline of physics, but also relative to all fields of scientific inquiry.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Science and technology studies Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
| gpt | Science and technology studies Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | high |
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".