Bibliographic record
Abstract
The crisis introduced For those who want to know the answers to the big questions about the natural world, the fundamental sciences whose role is to discover the answers to those questions are in a most puzzling state. There is certainly reason to celebrate the greatest triumphs in the history of the physical sciences. Powerful theories based on great principles have given us an unprecedented understanding of nature on a vast array of scales of space, time, and energy. The great theories invented through the twentieth century – general relativity, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, and the standard model of particle physics – have yet to fail experimental test. These theories have given us detailed and precise predictions for phenomena as diverse as gravitational waves emitted by orbiting neutron stars, the scattering of elementary particles, the configurations of large molecules, and the patterns of radiation produced in the big bang – and in all these phenomena, which were not even dreamed of a century ago, those predictions have proven correct. But just as the physical sciences celebrate their greatest triumphs, they face their greatest crisis. This crisis lies in our failure, despite what has been now many decades of effort by increasing numbers of scientists, to complete the scientific revolution that was initiated by Einstein’s discovery of the quantum nature of radiation and matter and his simultaneous invention of relativity theory. These two revolutions are each successful in its own domain, but remain unjoined.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.003 |
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".