Rotations of macromolecules affect nonspecific biological responses to magnetic fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have previously proposed that there are at least two initial molecular transduction mechanisms needed to explain specific and nonspecific biological effects of weak magnetic fields. For the specific effect associated with animal magnetic navigation, the radical pair mechanism is the leading hypothesis; it associates the specialised magnetic sense with the radical pairs located in the eye retina. In contrast to the magnetic sense, nonspecific effects occur through the interaction of magnetic fields with magnetic moments dispersed over the organism. However, it is unlikely that the radical pair mechanism can explain such nonspecific phenomena. In order to explain these, we further develop our physical model for the case of magnetic moments residing in rotating molecules. It is shown that, in some conditions, the precession of the magnetic moments that reside on rotating molecules can be slowed relative to the immediate biophysical structures. In terms of quantum mechanics this corresponds to the mixing of the quantum levels of magnetic moments. Hence this mechanism is called the Level Mixing Mechanism, or the LMM. The results obtained are magnetic field-dependences that are in good agreement with known experiments where biological effects arise in response to the reversal of the magnetic field vector.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".