Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cilj je rada u najosnovnijim crtama ponuditi objasnjenje glavnih otkrica koja su dovela do nastanka kvantne teorije kakvom su je iznijeli Niels Bohr i Werner Heisenberg. Vec je nakon prvih eksperimenata sa svjetloscu bila naceta tema o dvojnom, valno-cesticnom svojstvu zracenja, bitna za razvoj kvantne fizike. Rad se u nastavku bavi razvojem fizike pod utjecajem važnih fizicara poput J. J. Thomsona, Ernesta Rutheforda, Maxa Plancka i Alberta Einsteina kao bi ponudio uvid u paradoksalnost i ocevidnu nepomirljivost suvremenih otkrica na podrucju tadasnje fizike. Kao glavne protagoniste u rjesavanju nastalih problema pamtimo Erwina Schrodingera, Louisa de Broglia te Nielsa Bohra i Wernera Heisenberga. Od spomenutih posljednja su dvojica posebno dragocjena za filozofski interes zbog vlastitih teorijskih osvrta na rezultate eksperimenata tadasnje fizike radi cega je velik dio rada posvecen njihovom tumacenju istih. Ono se konsenzusno naziva Kopenhagenskim tumacenjem kvantne fizike, a zadnji dio rada nastoji dati prikaz njegovih osnovnih principa.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.009 |
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".