Bibliographic record
Abstract
To overcome the deficits of entropy as a measure for disorder when the number of states available to a system can change, Landsberg defined “disorder” as the entropy normalized to the maximum entropy. In the simplest cases, the maximum entropy is that of the equiprobable distribution, corresponding to a completely random system. However, depending on the question being asked and on system constraints, this absolute maximum entropy may not be the proper maximum entropy. To assess the effects of interactions on the “disorder” of a 1-dimensional spin system, the correct maximum entropy is that of the paramagnet (no interactions) with the same net magnetization; for a non-equilibrium system the proper maximum entropy may be that of the corresponding equilibrium system; and for hierarchical structures, an appropriate maximum entropy for a given level of the hierarchy is that of the system which is maximally random, subject to constraints deriving from the next lower level. Considerations of these examples leads us to introduce the “equivalent random system”: that system which is maximally random consistent with any constraints and with the question being asked. It is the entropy of the “equivalent random system” which should be taken as the maximum entropy in Landsberg's “disorder”.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".