MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Gravitational and Experimental Electromagnetic Contributions to Cerebral Effects upon Deviations from Random Number Variations Generated by Electron Tunneling

2013· article· en· W2138915133 on OpenAlexaff
Joey M. Caswell, Mark W.G. Collins, David A. E. Vares, Lyndon M. Juden-Kelly, Michael A. Persinger

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Letters of Chemistry Physics and Astronomy · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicParanormal Experiences and Beliefs
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantum tunnellingGravitationPhysicsElectronRange (aeronautics)Coupling (piping)QuantumComputational physicsCondensed matter physicsQuantum mechanicsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New theoretical and traditional quantitative solutions involving a pervasive unit quantum of ~10 -20 J within biological and large-scale physical systems predicted that the mass of the human subject, subtle changes in gravitational phenomena, and the energy available within the cerebral volume should affect proximal random number variations produced by electron tunneling. In a series of experiments application of a specific, physiologically-patterned weak magnetic field over the right temporal lobe significantly enhanced the effects of intention upon deviations from random variations created by electron tunneling devices at a distance of 1 m. These variations were strongly (r~0.80) correlated with the coupling between the forces from the background free oscillations of the earth and the energy differences across the cell width between lunar perigee and apogee. The results support the approach that complex cognitive processes including “intention” can be described by physicochemical parameters and their magnitude of energies are within the range by which interactions or modulations from subtle gravitational forces applied across the cellular membrane and width might occur.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.575

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Letters of Chemistry Physics and AstronomySame topicParanormal Experiences and BeliefsFrench-language works237,207