MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986346639 · doi:10.1088/1674-4527/15/1/001

Trials and tribulations of playing the devil's advocate

2015· article· en· W1986346639 on OpenAlexfundno aff
J. V. Narlikar

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in Astronomy and Astrophysics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueIndustry CanadaTata Institute of Fundamental ResearchIndian Council for Cultural RelationsGovernment of Canada
KeywordsMainstreamCosmologyPhysicsAction (physics)State (computer science)SociologyAstronomyLawPolitical scienceQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Beginning with his student days at school and college, the author describes his training at Cambridge with special emphasis on his mentor Fred Hoyle. His early experience of participating in a controversy at Cambridge played a major role in giving him the confidence to defend his scientific ideas. All through his later life he chose areas that were not part of mainstream research. These included the steady state theory and later the quasi steady state cosmology, action at a distance, noncosmological redshifts, quantum conformal cosmology, etc. After being a founding member of the Institute of Theoretical Astronomy (IOTA) at Cambridge, the author joined the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) in Mumbai and later moved to Pune to set up the Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics (IUCAA). He briefly reviews his own work and ends by pointing out the difficulties a non-conformist scientist faces in his professional life. In the conclusion, he mentions his interests in science popularization and science fiction for which he has won awards and appreciation, including UNESCO's Kalinga Prize.

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 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)0.002
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 score0.397
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch in Astronomy and AstrophysicsSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207