The Physics and Metaphysics of Social Powers: Bridging Cognitive Processing and Social Dynamics, a New Perspective on Power Through Active Inference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Power operates across multiple scales, from physical action to complex social dynamics, and is constrained by fundamental principles. In the social realm, power is shaped by interactions and cognitive capacity: socially-facilitated empowerment enhances an agent's information-processing ability, either by delegating tasks or leveraging collective resources. This computational advantage expands access to policies and buffers against vulnerabilities, amplifying an individual's or group's influence. In AIF, social power emerges from the capacity to attract attention and process information effectively. Our semantic habitat-narratives, ideologies, representations, etc.-functions through attentional scripts that coordinate social behavior. Shared scripts shape power dynamics by structuring collective attention. Speculative scripts serve as cognitive tools for low-risk learning, allowing agents to explore counterfactuals and refine predictive models. However, dominant scripts can reinforce misinformation, echo chambers, and power imbalances by directing collective attention toward self-reinforcing policies. We argue that power through scripts stems not only from associations with influential agents but also from the ability to efficiently process information, creating a feedback loop of increasing influence. This reframes power beyond traditional material and cultural dimensions, towards an informational and computational paradigm-what we term possibilistic power, i.e., the capacity to explore and shape future trajectories. Understanding these mechanisms has critical implications for political organization and technological foresight.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".