MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057639008 · doi:10.1139/p99-071

<i>Reply to comment on</i>: Curling rock dynamics - The motion of a curling rock: inertial vs. noninertial reference frames

2000· article· en· W2057639008 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mark Denny

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWinter Sports Injuries and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurlingPhysicsInertial frame of referenceMotion (physics)Classical mechanicsMechanicsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In their comment, Shegelski and Reid (SR) question the validity ofthe approach adopted in my paper to calculate the motion ofa curling rock. Predictions of the motion of a curling rockfall into two categories: those that depend upon frictionalasymmetry and those that do not. Predictions in the firstcategory are discussed here and shown to contradict the resultsof SR. Predictions in the second category are shown to be notapplicable to the game of curling.PACS Nos.: 46.00, 01.80+b

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0070.004
Research integrity0.0380.044
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.013

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.234 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations4
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicWinter Sports Injuries and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207