Malus's law of light polarization using a Computer-Based Laboratory
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolSe utilizo un arreglo experimental basado en un sistema de adquisicion de datos controlados por computadora para medir la intensidad de la luz transmitida a traves de dos polarizadores y el angulo, �AE, de los ejes de los polarizadores. La instalacion se propuso a estudiantes de fisica para hacer practicas reales en donde se muestra la adquisicion de datos experimentales en tiempo real que facilitan el analisis y la interpretacion de resultados. Los excelentes resultados cuantitativos y cualitativos son reportados y se comparan con la teoria exacta de la ley de Malus. La pendiente de la traza de datos de la intensidad de la luz contra el cos2�AE posee una incertidumbre en el 0,8% de la unidad. EnglishAn experimental arrangement based on computer-controlled data acquisition system was used to measure the light intensity transmitted through two polarizers and the angle, e, of the axes of the polarizers. The setup was proposed to physics undergraduate students to do real hands-on experiment where real-time display of the experimental data facilitates the analysis and interpretation of the results. The excellent quantitative and qualitative results are reported and compared with the exact theory of Malus's law. The slope of the plotted data of light intensity versus cos2e has an uncertainty within 0.8% of unity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it