Bibliographic record
Abstract
An attempt is presented for the description of the magnitude of Newton’s gravitational force in the experiments with a horizontal torsion balance. There were developed many experimental arrangements in order to find experimentally the value of big G – the Newtonian gravitational constant – after the Michell-Cavendish experiment in 1798. The geometrical configurations of test and source masses play a very important role in these experiments. The old trigonometric function “sagitta” used by Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton was newly employed as the trigonometric tool for the determination of the magnitude of Newton’s gravitational force between the source mass and the test mass. Based on the known experimental configurations with the horizontal torsion balance we have found that the “true” Michell-Cavendish configuration is not dependent on the space orientation. This “sagitta” function can be experimentally tested in the Karagioz-Izmailov configuration and the Karagioz-Izmailov-Gillies-Gershteyn configuration with the technology available at begin of our century. A proposal for the decomposition of the big G was presented. This concept could not be experimentally tested before the discoveries of the dipole in the cosmic microwave background radiation and the Pioneer anomaly.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.008 |
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".