MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975228931 · doi:10.1119/1.1804661

Tossing on a Rotating Space Station

2004· article· en· W1975228931 on OpenAlex
Mark Paetkau

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

VenueThe Physics Teacher · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicExperimental and Theoretical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsKeyano College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBall (mathematics)Observer (physics)Space (punctuation)Point (geometry)Frame of referenceReference frameMathematicsPhysicsCalculus (dental)Classical mechanicsComputer scienceGeometryFrame (networking)TelecommunicationsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The following analysis was inspired by a question posed by a listener of a radio science show.1 The listener asked the question: “If an astronaut in a space station that was rotating to simulate gravity threw a ball up, where would the ball go?” The physicist answered, “The ball would travel straight across the space station (assuming an open structure). “The main point is that to an outside observer the ball would not “fall” back down as on Earth. As I pondered this it occurred to me that while the answer is correct, it is a special case with a more general solution. Below is an analysis of the motions a thrown object can undergo on a rotating space station. The first part of the discussion is aimed at lower-level undergraduates who have a basic understanding of vectors and circular motion, and the motion is described from the point of view of an external reference frame. Further analysis of the motion by an observer on the space station is appropriate for upper-level students.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.455
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.257 · 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