Bibliographic record
Abstract
Julian Schwinger was a child prodigy, and Albert Einstein distinctly not; Schwinger had something like 73 graduate students, and Einstein very few. But both thought that gravity was important. They were not, of course, the first, nor is the disagreement on how one should think about gravity, which was highlighted at the June 2012 meeting of the American Astronomical Society, the first such dispute. Explored here are several views of what gravity is supposed to do: action at a distance versus luminiferous ether, universal gravitation versus action only on solids, finite versus infinite propagation speed, and whether the exponent in the 1/r2 law is precisely two, or two plus a smidgeon (a suggestion by Simon Newcomb among others). Second, an attempt is made to describe Julian Schwinger’s early work and how it might have prefigured his “source theory,” beginning with his unpublished 1934 paper “on the interaction of several electrons,” through his days at Berkeley with Oppenheimer, Gerjuoy, and others, to the application of nuclear physics ideas to radar, and of radar engineering techniques to nuclear physics. Those who believe that good jobs are difficult to come by now might want to contemplate the couple of years Schwinger spent teaching introductory physics at Purdue before moving on to the Radiation Laboratory in 1942.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".