Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stealing the Gold is a book celebrating the contributions of Sam Edwards to a wide range of topics in theoretical physics. The range is indeed wide. Edwards' work has had a profound influence on many areas including turbulence, polymer physics, spin glasses and (most recently) granular media. These areas are certainly diverse but they share some common features. In particular, the issues and their precise definitions are elusive and it is not obvious what tools are available to attack the problems. In many of these areas Edwards has changed the way we look at and attack these problems. As an example, let me take the area that I know best. When a polymer molecule is dissolved to form a dilute solution, what shape is the molecule? In particular, how does some distance measure such as the radius of gyration depend on the molecular weight? The difficulty in treating the problem and answering this question comes from the fact that the monomers interact with one another—in the simplest picture they take up space to the exclusion of other monomers. When Edwards came to this field there were some perturbation treatments which we now know to be inadequate, and a physically appealing theory by Paul Flory which contained some uncontrolled approximations. Edwards wrote a paper on this topic in 1965 which completely changed the field. His idea was to use a self-consistent field approach, reminiscent of the Hartree treatment of the atom, and self-consistent field methods are now part of the stock-in-trade of polymer physicists. This ability to break into a new field and make an important contribution, and then do the same thing again for another new field, is one of the things that makes Edwards stand out among theoretical physicists.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".