MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406483851 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.08683

The Physics of Life: Exploring Information as a Distinctive Feature of Living Systems

2025· preprint· en· W4406483851 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Stuart Bartlett, Andrew W. Eckford, Matthew Egbert, Manasvi Lingam, Artemy Kolchinsky, Adam Frank, Gourab Ghoshal

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCognitive Science and Education Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean CommissionJohn Templeton Foundation
KeywordsFeature (linguistics)Living systemsData scienceComputer scienceCognitive sciencePsychologyArtificial intelligencePhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the idea that information is an essential and distinctive feature of living systems. Unlike non-living systems, living systems actively acquire, process, and use information about their environments to respond to changing conditions, sustain themselves, and achieve other intrinsic goals. We discuss relevant theoretical frameworks such as ``semantic information'' and ``fitness value of information''. We also highlight the broader implications of our perspective for fields such as origins-of-life research and astrobiology. In particular, we touch on the transition to information-driven systems as a key step in abiogenesis, informational constraints as determinants of planetary habitability, and informational biosignatures for detecting life beyond Earth. We briefly discuss experimental platforms which offer opportunities to investigate these theoretical concepts in controlled environments. By integrating theoretical and experimental approaches, this perspective advances our understanding of life's informational dynamics and its universal principles across diverse scientific domains.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.orgSame topicCognitive Science and Education ResearchFrench-language works237,207