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 OpenAlexaff
Michael A. Persinger

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 ~1079 for the total number of elementary particles in the universe. However, assumptions employed to obtain the universal mass in a volume of ~1079 m3 produce values remarkably commensurate with ~1079 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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.023
Scholarly communication0.0040.010
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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

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

Citations12
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Letters of Chemistry Physics and AstronomySame topicCognitive Science and Education ResearchFrench-language works237,207