Bibliographic record
Abstract
The central theme of this book is gravitation in its weak-field aspects, as described within the framework of Einstein's general theory of relativity. Because Newtonian gravity is recovered in the limit of very weak fields, it is an appropriate entry point into our discussion of weak-field gravitation. Newtonian gravity, therefore, will occupy us within this chapter, as well as the following two chapters. There are, of course, many compelling reasons to begin a study of gravitation with a thorough review of the Newtonian theory; some of these are reviewed below in Sec. 1.1. The reason that compels us most of all is that although there is a vast literature on Newtonian gravity – a literature that has accumulated over more than 300 years – much of it is framed in old mathematical language that renders it virtually impenetrable to present-day students. This is quite unlike the situation encountered in current presentations of Maxwell's electrodynamics, which, thanks to books such as Jackson's influential text (1998), are thoroughly modern. One of our main goals, therefore, is to submit the classical literature on Newtonian gravity to a Jacksonian treatment, to modernize it so as to make it accessible to present-day students. And what a payoff is awaiting these students! As we shall see in Chapters 2 and 3, Newtonian gravity is most generous in its consequences, delivering a whole variety of fascinating phenomena.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
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".