Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we qualitatively examine the compatibility between gravity and the absoluteness of time. Initially, time is supposed as being absolute. However, this assumption does not imply that instruments and devices, finalized to measure time, are not influenced by gravity. On the contrary, we admit that whatever phenomenon, including the ones that occur when we measure time, shows clear traces of the influence of gravity. Nonetheless, the alleged time dilation, that seems to occur when we approach a gravitational source, could actually be illusory. In this paper, in fact, we contemplate the possibility that the above-mentioned phenomenon could be exclusively related to the contraction of the orbits induced by the mass that produces the gravitational field. We start from postulating a Universe, belonging to the oscillatory class, characterized by at least a further spatial dimension. At the beginning, the Universe in its entirety is assimilated to a four-dimensional ball, and matter is considered as being evenly spread. Once hypothesized that all the available mass may be concentrated in a single point, taking advantage of an opportune parameterization, pretending that the orbits don't undergo any modification whatsoever and admitting, as a consequence, that time starts slowing down when we move towards the singularity, we can easily obtain, far from the source, a Schwarzschild solution for the vacuum field, without using General Relativity.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it