MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comment on: “Lorentz violation in high-energy ions” by Santosh Devasia

2011· article· en· W2098198933 on OpenAlexaff
G. Saathoff, S. Reinhardt, Ronald Holzwarth, Theodor W. Hänsch, Th. Udem, D. Bing, D. Schwalm, A. Wolf, S. Karpuk, George W. Huber, C. Novotny, Benjamin Botermann, C. Geppert, W. Nörtershäuser, T. Kühl, Th. Stöhlker, G. Gwinner

Bibliographic record

VenueThe European Physical Journal C · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLorentz transformationIonPhysicsTheoretical physicsTheory of relativityEnergy (signal processing)Test theories of special relativityLorentz covarianceQuantum mechanicsFour-force

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an article “Lorentz violation in high-energy ions” by S. Devasia published in this Journal [EPJ C 69, 343 (2010)], our recent Doppler shift experiments on fast ion beams are reanalyzed. Contrary to our analysis, Devasia concludes that our results provide an “indication of Lorentz violation”. We argue that this conclusion is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of our experimental scheme and reiterate that our results are in excellent agreement with Special Relativity.

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 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 score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe European Physical Journal CSame topicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity TheoriesFrench-language works237,207