How the Physical World Impacts Different Objects
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
Main properties of the Universe are studied from some general positions of system theory. The world is described as the manifold of different objects. All of them have hierarchic stricture. The Objects constantly interact with each other. There are three basic types of interaction between the Objects. These interactions are implemented through flows of substance with different nature. Three main types of these substance flows are known. They are: the flow of matter, the flow of energy and the flow of information. Each of them can be divided in a standard paire – inflow and outflow. The affectation of all these pairs changes the each Object. If this affectation is weak one can say the properties of different parts of the environment are only reflected on the Object. The animation matter has active reflection of its environment. The non-animated matter has only passive reflection. One can select two stages of reflection. The first one is the interaction environment-interface. The second one is interaction between the interface and the internal parts of Object. The rates of these two interactions are different. Some practical examples of different rates of interaction are described. These examples are connected with the process of solidification in the case of non-animated matter. There are two additional examples for animated matter too. They are connected with the chains of transformation of information.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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