MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082965229 · doi:10.1088/0143-0807/25/6/009

A Newtonian pre-introduction to gravitational lenses

2004· article· en· W2082965229 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Physics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicExperimental and Theoretical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nautical Research Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsGeneral relativityGravitational fieldClassical mechanicsGravitational lensDeflection (physics)GravitationOpacityObserver (physics)Two-body problem in general relativityNewtonian fluidTheory of relativityGalaxyAstrophysicsOpticsNumerical relativityQuantum mechanicsIntroduction to the mathematics of general relativity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Understanding the deflection of light by a massive deflector, as well as the associated gravitational lens phenomena, require the use of the theory of General Relativity. I consider here a classical analogy, based on Newton’s equation of motion for massive particles. These particles are emitted by a distant source and deflected by the gravitational field of a (opaque) star or of a (transparent) galaxy. The dependence of the deviation angle D on the impact parameter b, and the- Euclidean- geometry of the (source, deflector, earth) triplet, imply that different particle trajectories may reach an earth based observer. Since D(b) does not depend on the mass of the particles, a (Newtonian) flavor of gravitational lenses phenomena is naively obtained by setting the particles ’ velocity equal to the speed of light. Orders of magnitude are obtained through this classical approach, and are compared to the General Relativity results.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.469
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.242
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