MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Support for Eddington’s Number and his Approach to Astronomy: Recent Developments in the Physics and Chemistry of the Human Brain

2013· article· en· W2111181636 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

VenueInternational Letters of Chemistry Physics and Astronomy · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCognitive Science and Education Research
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsCosmologyPlanckGravitationAstrophysicsTheoretical physicsDark matterConsciousnessAstronomyPhotonEpistemologyQuantum mechanicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The astronomical contributions of Sir Arthur Eddington have sometimes been distracted by his philosophy and his derivation of ~10 79 for the total number of elementary particles in the universe. However, assumptions employed to obtain the universal mass in a volume of ~10 79 m3 produce values remarkably commensurate with ~10 79 protons. The congruence between the calculated gravitational forces for rest mass photons separated by Planck’s length and potassium ions separated by the distance that maintains a neuron’s resting plasma membrane potential is also consistent with his assumption that universal structure is mirrored within consciousness and its extensions through sensitive instrumentation. Recent measurements of photon emissions during changes in membrane potentials and human beings engaging in visual imagery as well as the concept of entanglement suggest that careful reevaluation of Eddington’s approach in cosmology, astronomy, and astrophysics may be revealing.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.273 · 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