MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116100765 · doi:10.1017/9781108953177.011

Motivations and Foundations

2025· book-chapter· W7116100765 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2025
Typebook-chapter
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Testing and Assessment
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArticulation (sociology)QuantumCategorical quantum mechanicsPhilosophy of science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the main purposes of this chapter is to explain, albeit in an abstract manner, how quantum physics–like models of the economics-finance contexts would differ from quantum math-like (or simply, quantum-like) models. For this, the chapter begins by considering, what may be called, the “physical” foundations of quantum theory. These include the foundations pertaining to the theoretical, experimental, and interpretational aspects of quantum theory. With reference to the physical foundations, the chapter elaborates on certain expectations from agent-centric economics-finance models to qualify as “quantum physics–analogous”. Then, by briefly reviewing some of the prominent theories of analogical arguments and reasoning from the philosophy of science (for instance, Aristotle’s theory, Hesse’s theory, Gentner’s structure-mapping theory and Bartha’s articulation model), the chapter ends by proposing a strategy for the systematic construction of quantum physics–analogous models of economics and finance.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.232 · 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