MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076638436 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2014-0216

A suggestion for MOND

2014· article· en· W2076638436 on OpenAlexaffvenue

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstronomy and Astrophysical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFifth forceLagrangianGravitationModified Newtonian dynamicsNonlinear systemNewtonian fluidEquations of motionMotion (physics)Scalar (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) has had considerable success in describing motion in galaxies. It uses a single force which falls off inversely with the distance at large distances and inversely with the square of the distance at smaller distances. We present an alternative theory with two forces, one the traditional Newtonian inverse-square, and the other that falls off inversely with distance at large distances. This obvious possibility has been avoided because of fear that the second force would be incompatible with observed planetary motions. However, the nonlinear field equation that governs this force is shown to reduce its strength near stars. The theory is derived from a Lagrangian density with two scalar potentials. It is nonrelativistic, but nevertheless agrees with the “classical tests of relativistic gravity” and can be used to calculate the bending of light in gravitational fields. Possible applications to interactions in galactic clusters and to anomalous planetary motions are noted.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.012
Scholarly communication0.0050.011
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.004

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicAstronomy and Astrophysical ResearchFrench-language works237,207