Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beable-guided quantum theories (BGQT) are generalizations of quantum theory, inspired by Bell's concept of beables. They modify the quantum probabilities for some specified set of fundamental events, histories, or other elements of quasiclassical reality by probability laws that depend on the realized configuration of beables. For example, they may define an additional probability weight factor for a beable configuration, independent of the quantum dynamics. Beable-guided quantum theories can be fitted to observational data to provide foils against which to compare explanations based on standard quantum theory. For example, a BGQT could, in principle, characterize the effects attributed to dark energy or dark matter, or any other deviation from the predictions of standard quantum dynamics, without introducing extra fields or a cosmological constant. The complexity of the beable-guided theory would then parametrize how far we are from a standard quantum explanation. Less conservatively, we give reasons for taking suitably simple beable-guided quantum theories as serious phenomenological theories in their own right. Among these are the possibility that cosmological models defined by BGQT might in fact fit the empirical data better than any standard quantum explanation, and the fact that BGQT suggest potentially interesting nonstandard ways of coupling quantum matter to gravity.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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, 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".