MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Autocatalysis, Autopoiesis, and the Opportunity Cost of Individuality

2024· preprint· en· W4399053694 on OpenAlexaff
Nemanja Kliska, Chrystopher L. Nehaniv

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicOrigins and Evolution of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutopoiesisAutocatalysisEpistemologyComputer sciencePhilosophyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ever since Varela and Maturana proposed the concept of autopoiesis as the minimal requirement for life, there has been a focus on cellular systems that erect topological boundaries to separate themselves from their surrounding environment. Here we reconsider whether the existence of such a spatial boundary is strictly necessary for self-producing entities. This work presents a novel computational model of a minimal autopoietic system inspired by dendrites and molecular dynamics simulations in three-dimensional space. A series of simulation experiments where the metabolic pathways of a particular autocatalytic set are successively inhibited until autocatalytic entities that could be considered autopoietic are produced. These entities maintain their distinctness in an environment containing multiple identical instances of the entities without the existence of a topological boundary. This gives rise to the concept of a metabolic boundary which manifests as emergent self-selection criteria for the processes of self-production without any need for unique identifiers. However, the adoption of such a boundary comes at a cost, as these autopoietic entities are less suited to their simulated environment than their autocatalytic counterparts. Finally, this work showcases a generalized metabolism-centered approach to the study of autopoiesis that can be applied to both physical and abstract systems alike.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicOrigins and Evolution of LifeFrench-language works237,207