Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction In the late 1940s and throughout the 1950s a number of visionary scientists including Alpher, Fermi, Follin, Gamow, Hayashi, Herman and Turkevich attempted to explain nuclear abundance patterns observed in the nearby Universe, such as the peculiar high helium mass fraction Y P ≈ 0.25. This initially speculative work on an era of nucleosynthesis (element formation) in an expanding Universe at very high temperature T ∼ 10 9 K developed slowly but steadily over the coming decades into what is now known as the Standard Model of Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN). The idea that the Universe may have undergone a very hot and dense early phase was triggered by the observations of Hubble, in the 1920s, of the recession velocity of galaxies being proportional to their inferred distance from the Milky Way, which were most elegantly explained by a Universe in expansion. The ‘expanding hot Big Bang’ idea received further support from the observation by Penzias and Wilson in 1965 of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR), believed to be the left-over radiation of the early Universe. Detailed observational and theoretical studies of BBN as well as the CMBR and the Hubble flow have developed into the main pillars on which present-day cosmology rests. BBN takes place between eras with (CMBR) temperatures T ≠ 3 MeV and T ≠ 10 keV, in the cosmic time window t ≠ 0.1–10 4 s, and may be characterized as a freeze-out from nuclear statistical equilibrium of a cosmic plasma at very low (∼10 −9 ) baryon-to-photon number ratio (cf. Section 28.2), conditions which are not encountered in stars.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".