MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137031280 · doi:10.2466/pms.2002.95.2.555

Ranking of Stimuli That Evoked Memories in Significant others after Exposure to Circumcerebral Magnetic Fields: Correlations with Ambient Geomagnetic Activity

2002· letter· en· W2137031280 on OpenAlexaff
John N. Booth, J. C. Charette, Michael A. Persinger

Bibliographic record

VenuePerceptual and Motor Skills · 2002
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicParanormal Experiences and Beliefs
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarth's magnetic fieldParanormalPsychologyStimulus (psychology)ConsciousnessAffect (linguistics)AudiologyCognitive psychologyMagnetic fieldNeurosciencePhysicsCommunicationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To identify means to enhance the laboratory production of alleged paranormal phenomena, 15 pairs of men and women involved emotionally were tested by male and female experimenters who were not familiar with the hypothesis that ambient (geomagnetic) activity could modulate this production. While the female of the pair was exposed to six different patterns of complex magnetic fields designed to affect states of consciousness, the male wrote his reminiscences about shared experiences evoked by a postcard randomly selected from a collection of five. Increased global geomagnetic activity (k values between 0 and 5) at the time of the experiments was significantly and moderately correlated with the more accurate ranking of the stimulus cards. These results were similar to those of a previous study. We suggest that alleged paranormal phenomena involve processes that might be produced by experimentally altering the electroencephalographic correlates of consciousness with circumcerebral applications of counterclockwise weak magnetic fields. However, these processes may be enhanced if global geomagnetic activity is increasing during the periods of exposure.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.239 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerceptual and Motor SkillsSame topicParanormal Experiences and BeliefsFrench-language works237,207