MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997241531 · doi:10.4245/sponge.v6i1.16131

Interpreting Feynman Diagrams as Visual Models

2012· article· en· W1997241531 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Adrian Wüthrich

Bibliographic record

VenueSpontaneous Generations A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of BernSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsFeynman diagramFeynman graphTheoretical physicsComputer scienceMathematicsPhysicsMathematical physicsParticle physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I give a brief introduction to how Feynman diagrams are used. I review arguments to the effect that they are only used as calculation tools and should not be interpreted as representations of physical processes. Against these arguments, I propose to regard Feynman diagrams as visual models that explain, in some respects, how elementary particles interact.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.013
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpontaneous Generations A Journal for the History and Philosophy of ScienceSame topicData Visualization and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207