MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1900653623 · doi:10.1088/978-1-627-05419-5

Modelling Physics with Microsoft Excel®

2014· book· en· W1900653623 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

VenueMorgan & Claypool Publishers eBooks · 2014
Typebook
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicExperimental and Theoretical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrosoft excelMicrosoft OfficeComputer scienceSoftware engineeringComputer graphics (images)World Wide WebOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this work is to show some of the ways in which Microsoft Excel may be used to solve numerical problems in the field of physics. But why use Excel in the first place? Certainly Excel is never going to out-perform the wonderful symbolic algebra tools that we have today—Mathematica. Mathcad, Maple, MATLAB, etc. However, from a pedagogical stance Excel has the advantage of not being a 'black box' approach to problem solving. The user must do a lot more work than just call up a function. The intermediate steps in a calculation are displayed on the worksheet—of course this is not true with the Solver add-in which is a wonderful 'black box'. Another advantage is the somewhat less steep learning curve. A high school student can quickly learn how to get Excel to do useful calculations.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.206
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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.183 · 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