Bibliographic record
Abstract
I convert F=ma into m=F÷a arithmetically as economists convert V=PY÷M into MV=PY. m=F÷a predicts absurdly that there is no mass if acceleration is zero. For example, you do not have mass when you sleep. Similarly, MV=PY predicts ridiculously that there is no aggregate income if there is no money. In fact, barter economy operates. As force is scalar in F=ma calculated as mass multiply acceleration so that force is not cause to determine mass in m=F÷a, income velocity is scalar in V=PY÷M calculated as ex-post nominal aggregate income is divided by ex-post quantity of money stock so that aggregate income does not depend on income velocity. Since the symbol V in V=PY÷M is scalar and the symbol V in MV=PY is cause so that MV=PY is not equivalent to V=PY÷M, arithmetical conversion is an invalid method to prove MV=PY. In other words, it is computation that MV=PY is equivalent to V=PY÷M as exactly as m=F÷a is equivalent to F=ma while it is thinking that MV=PY and V=PY÷M are different. Hence, quantity theory of money is false.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".