MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2584210076

Death, Consciousness and the Quantum Paradigm

2017· article· en· W2584210076 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

VenueScientific GOD Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Mechanics and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsciousnessPhenomenonHierarchyEpistemologyQuantumPlane (geometry)Cognitive sciencePsychologyPhilosophyTheoretical physicsPhysicsQuantum mechanicsMathematicsPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I have in this discussion tried to normalize the idea of an after-life (with its apparently quantized planes of consciousness) by placing it in a theoretical framework informed by the hiatic behavior of the quantum paradigm.  I have also tried to  de-weird  the paradigm by placing it in the somewhat more accessible framework of world-creative consciousness, a common example of which is the phenomenon of  dreaming up  a complete and all-encompassing world.  To put it another way, the external world behaves the way it does because it appears to be infused with an internal or consciousness-like aspect, which behaves as it does because it is composed of a hierarchy of levels or planes.  One of these levels is the physical plane, wherein the quantum foundations of reality were discovered.  Moreover, the hostility of physicists to the idea of a non-physical plane associated with an after-life or mind somehow independent of matter makes sense in the theoretical framework I am attempting to put forward.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.255 · 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