MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7056944667

Frameworks in physics: Abstractness, generality, and the role of metaphysics

2024· other· en· W7056944667 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilSci-Archive (University of Pittsburgh) · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Pittsburgh
KeywordsMetaphysicsGeneralityQuantumField (mathematics)Ontology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In defending the fundamentality of the open systems view for quantum theory, Cuffaro and Hartmann (2024) articulate an account of frameworks in physics. They argue that the general quantum theory of open systems is a more fundamental framework than standard quantum theory. In this chapter, we articulate an account of frameworks using the examples of quantum field theory and statistical mechanics. We argue that what makes frameworks useful in physics is the combination of generality and abstractness of frameworks. In particular, their abstractness makes them poor targets for metaphysical analysis; the more concrete levels of theories or models are the appropriate target for ontological fundamentality claims.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilSci-Archive (University of Pittsburgh)Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207