MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117651860 · doi:10.1088/0031-9120/48/5/670

Molasses or crowds: making sense of the Higgs boson with two popular analogies

2013· article· en· W2117651860 on OpenAlexaff
Steve Alsop, S. Beale

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Education · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHiggs bosonLarge Hadron ColliderParticle physicsMeaning (existential)CrowdsPhysicsHiggs mechanismPhenomenonHiggs fieldTheoretical physicsEpistemologyComputer sciencePhilosophyQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recent discovery of the Higgs boson at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has contributed to a surge of interest in particle physics and science education in general. Given the conceptual difficulty of the phenomenon in question, it is inevitable that teachers and science communicators rely on analogies to explain the Higgs physics and its meaning. Here, we review two popular analogies for explaining the Higgs boson, field and mechanism and their complex relationships. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these analogies and their pedagogical implications.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.611
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics EducationSame topicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studiesFrench-language works237,207