Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the history of physics trigonometric functions played several times a very critical role at crossroads. This time we are at a crossroads with the interpretation of correlation events of entangled particles. In this approach we propose to describe the experimental data of Alice and Bob using not so known trigonometric functions. Claudius Theorem (based on the trigonometric family of Sagitta and Cosagitta) evalutes the probabilistic occurrence of correlated and anticorrelated events. David Theorem (based on the trigonometric family of Hacoversine) describes the probability of the following identical events and gaps between the following identical events. In this trigonometric concept the Team of Alice, Bob, Claudius and David formulated a camouflage legend for Eve – “spooky action at a distance”. Merlin (with unbounded computational ability) should verify the truth of this statement. Trent (a trusted arbitrator, who acts as a neutral third party) should analyze these data and this trigonometric concept. Victor (a verifier) should make his decision which way we should continue in our future research: either through the Niels Bohr avenue or through the Albert Einstein sidewalk.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".