MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3169426197 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2105.14279

A comment on: the violations of locality and free choice are equivalent resources in Bell experiments

2021· preprint· en· W3169426197 on OpenAlexaff
Marian Kupczyński

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Mechanics and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLocalityMathematical economicsEconomicsPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a recent paper published in PNAS authors prove that locality and free choice are equivalent resources which need to be relaxed in order to fully reproduce some statistics in Bell experiments (while always maintaining realism). We explain that their assumption of free choice is simply counterfactual definiteness or noncontextuality. Therefore the resource in Bell experiments is contextuality and not the violations of locality and/or of free choice. It is definitely less mind boggling conclusion because experimenters` freedom of choice is a prerequisite of science,

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.010
Scholarly communication0.0030.011
Open science0.0070.003
Research integrity0.0280.044
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.011

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.134 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicQuantum Mechanics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207