MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390468008 · doi:10.3390/e26010043

Toward the Relational Formulation of Biological Thermodynamics

2023· article· en· W4390468008 on OpenAlexaff
Abir U. Igamberdiev

Bibliographic record

VenueEntropy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermodynamicsStatistical physicsEquilibrium thermodynamicsNon-equilibrium thermodynamicsThermodynamic equilibriumLaws of thermodynamicsEntropy (arrow of time)Context (archaeology)Second law of thermodynamicsLiving systemsThermodynamic systemPhysicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Classical thermodynamics employs the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, characterized by maximal disorder of the constituent particles, as the reference frame from which the Second Law is formulated and the definition of entropy is derived. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics analyzes the fluxes of matter and energy that are generated in the course of the general tendency to achieve equilibrium. The systems described by classical and non-equilibrium thermodynamics may be heuristically useful within certain limits, but epistemologically, they have fundamental problems in the application to autopoietic living systems. We discuss here the paradigm defined as a relational biological thermodynamics. The standard to which this refers relates to the biological function operating within the context of particular environment and not to the abstract state of thermodynamic equilibrium. This is defined as the stable non-equilibrium state, following Ervin Bauer. Similar to physics, where abandoning the absolute space-time resulted in the application of non-Euclidean geometry, relational biological thermodynamics leads to revealing the basic iterative structures that are formed as a consequence of the search for an optimal coordinate system by living organisms to maintain stable non-equilibrium. Through this search, the developing system achieves the condition of maximization of its power via synergistic effects.

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)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEntropySame topicAdvanced Thermodynamics and Statistical MechanicsFrench-language works237,207