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
This paper attempts to provide a unified description of the laws of physics. In the text, a novel category of complex numbers, the so-called ai-complex numbers, is presented. These numbers are particularly useful for describing mass and charge in the form of a single complex quantity. If one combines mass and charge in this new ai-complex quantity, space and all spacedependent\nvector quantities can be described in the form of ai-complex biquaternions. For the description of vector quantities, a reduced complex biquaternion is needed. Following this method, a very elegant, consistent, and concise formulation of the well-known laws of physics can be written. In this formulation, the theory of relativity follows directly when ct is defined as a further, fourth dimension. The laws of electrodynamics, the laws of mechanics, and the laws of quantum theory also follow. Furthermore, the laws of electrodynamics and the laws of gravitation can be condensed. In this case, for the description of the condensed fields, the full ai-complex biquaternion is needed. An interesting possibility for the description of nuclear energy also follows from introducing the new physical quantity constructed from mass and charge
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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