Ranking of Stimuli That Evoked Memories in Significant others after Exposure to Circumcerebral Magnetic Fields: Correlations with Ambient Geomagnetic Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".