MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915309569 · doi:10.1119/1.5092484

The Difference Between a Probability and a Probability Density

2019· article· en· W2915309569 on OpenAlexaff
Antje Kohnle, Alexander Jackson, Mark Paetkau

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Physics Teacher · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistics Education and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantum probabilityProbabilistic logicStatistical physicsProbability theoryProbability density functionProbability distributionStatistical mechanicsProbability currentApplied probabilityProbability amplitudeComputer scienceQuantumPhysicsMathematicsQuantum processQuantum mechanicsQuantum dynamicsArtificial intelligenceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Learning introductory quantum physics is challenging, in part due to the different paradigms in classical mechanics and quantum physics. Classical mechanics is deterministic in that the equations of motion and the initial conditions fully determine a particle’s trajectory. Quantum physics is an inherently probabilistic theory in that only probabilities for measurement outcomes can be determined. Prior to studying quantum physics, students will typically have little experience with probabilistic analyses of physical systems, and thus probability may be a conceptual hurdle for introductory quantum physics students. This article describes two interactive simulations developed as part of the QuVis Quantum Mechanics Visualization Project that aim to bridge the gap between classical mechanics and quantum physics using probabilistic analyses of classical systems. The simulations illustrate how a probability density can be obtained for two classical systems well known to students. The key learning goals of the simulations are to introduce students to probability densities and to help students distinguish between a probability and a probability density. The simulations build on previous work by Bao and Redish, who developed an activity that used pseudo-random video frames of a glider in harmonic motion to derive a classical probability density for this system, and a University of Washington quantum mechanics tutorial focusing on probability and probability density for a classical system. Interactive simulations allow students to easily carry out experiments and change variables that would be difficult to do with real equipment, and help students connect multiple representations by showing explicitly how they are linked. The simulations described here only require basic knowledge of algebra and classical mechanics. They run on touchscreen devices as well as desktop computers, and can be run in a standard web browser from the QuVis website or downloaded for offline use.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.010
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.223
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.166 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Physics TeacherSame topicStatistics Education and MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207