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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.038
Scholarly communication0.0060.017
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.204
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; 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 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