Overview of the evidence regarding the invalidity of Eriksson's Model/Collection Volume Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unlike other marginal and invalid theories that usually quickly fade away, Eriksson's Model/Collection Volume Method (“CVM”) continues to dog the scientific community because the vendors of ESE (Early Streamer Emission) lightning rods have been using it as an alternative justification for their claims that have previously been discredited. The matter is especially serious, first because ESE devices pose a hazard to life and property, and second because the magnitude of the potential damage became huge when the CVM was introduced in an IEEE standard during December 2012. To help in mitigating the potential damage to public safety and public interest, this paper provides a summary of the evidence regarding invalidity of the CVM. This summary covers both the theoretical aspects and field observations. A companion paper discusses the problem regarding the standards-making process of the IEEE which allowed a design method that is both hazardous and technically invalid to be sanctioned by an organization that is presumed to be a prestigious learned society.
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 | 0.100 | 0.195 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".