MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950726328 · doi:10.1139/p03-072

Reply to the comment by A. Aste on "A simple explanation of the nonappearance of physical gluons and quarks"

2003· article· en· W2950726328 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum and Classical Electrodynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLimit (mathematics)Simple (philosophy)GluonElementary particleExact solutions in general relativity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the reply to a comment by Andreas Aste on a previous article of mine in the Canadian Journal of Physics The counter-arguments used by Aste utilize a mathematical limit without physical meaning. We still contend that in QCD, the particles "gluons" and "quarks" are merely artifacts of an approximation method (the perturbative expansion) and are simply absent in the exact theory. PACS Nos.: 12.38.Aw, 03.70.+k, 11.15.–q

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0410.064
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.008

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicQuantum and Classical ElectrodynamicsFrench-language works237,207