Bibliographic record
Abstract
Possibility of misidentification of emission lines of QSOs and thereby missing detection of blueshifts have been suggested and demonstrated in literature. It is shown here that absorption lines observed in the spectra of QSOs may also have been misidentified. Plenty search lines are available at higher wavelengths (red/IR regions) for identification with observed absorption lines, although lines from lower wavelengths (UV/blue regions) are always considered for identification. Re-examination of the published spectra of ten QSOs shows that the observed absorption lines can be interpreted as blueshifted, with same or better accuracy and sometimes more convincingly than redshifts. Objects on the sight line are identified with same emission blueshift as the blueshift of the absorption system of the QSO, the emission spectrum of the QSO itself being of course interpreted as blueshifted as well. It is proposed that the absorbers are probably linked with the QSO either physically or tidally/gravitationally as a result of some ejection mechanism. The observed blueshifts of spectral lines in emission and absorption can be explained in a model comprising of multiple expanding universes.
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".