MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3155097762 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp.9933

Is Change Essential To Time?

2018· article· en· W3155097762 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brittany J. Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhilosophy and Theoretical Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsB-theory of timeSpacetimeSpace (punctuation)Philosophy of space and timeEpistemologySpace timeMoment (physics)PhilosophyTheoretical physicsPhysicsClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been debate between A-theorists and B-theorists concerning the nature of time. The A-theory presents time as moving itself and that every moment passes from past, to present, and then to future. In short, in A-theory, time itself passes. The B-theory, on the other hand, says that all moments are equally present and that there is only past and future. In the B-theory of time, time itself doesn’t move, but according to the B-theorist, there is plenty of change within time. Looking at the famous Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Samuel Clarke (Isaac Newton’s representative) debate, Correspondence, this paper addresses the opinions surrounding space, time, and change. If Leibniz is correct in proposing that space is what occurs between objects – thus defending the relational theory of space called relationism – then it can be assumed that change is essential to time. In the end, it can be assumed that if there were to be no objects left in the universe, space would no longer exist. If space or objects did not exist, then there would be no change. Conclusively, if there were no change, time would cease to exist.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.023

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 head0.204
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.247 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicPhilosophy and Theoretical ScienceFrench-language works237,207