Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fundamental theory that underlies the physicist's description of the material world is quantum mechanics – specifically Erwin Schrödinger's 1926 formulation of the theory. This theory also brought with it an emphasis on certain fields of mathematical analysis, e.g., Hilbert space theory, spectral analysis, differential equations, etc., which, in turn, encouraged the development of parts of pure mathematics. Despite the great success of quantum mechanics in explaining details of the structure of atoms, molecules (including the complicated molecules beloved of organic chemists and the pharmaceutical industry, and so essential to life) and macroscopic objects like transistors, it took 41 years before the most fundamental question of all was resolved: Why doesn't the collection of negatively charged electrons and positively charged nuclei, which are the basic constituents of the theory, implode into a minuscule mass of amorphous matter thousands of times denser than the material normally seen in our world? Even today hardly any physics textbook discusses, or even raises this question, even though the basic conclusion of stability is subtle and not easily derived using the elementary means available to the usual physics student. There is a tendency among many physicists to regard this type of question as uninteresting because it is not easily reducible to a quantitative one.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.533 | 0.344 |
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".