Radioactive Decay as A Second-Order Kinetics Transformation Process. Consequences on Radiometric Dating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arguments suggest and recent analysis of experimental work confirm that the current interpretation of the transformation process we call ‘radioactive decay’ should be revised. The characteristics of this process are better accounted for by re-interpreting it in terms of second-order kinetics. Therefore, the atomic systems of nuclides we observe decay are ‘radio-activated’, and not, as hitherto believed, ‘radio-active’. According to this interpretation, the rate of decay of a radioactive nuclide is at any instant proportional to the concentration of the physical species that determines its activation. The analysis of λ of alfa- and beta-emitting nuclides show the dependence of these parameters from solar activity and distance. Therefore, if changes in the emission of energy from the sun occurred over time since the formation of a geological system, changes in the values of λ of the radioactive nuclides would also have occurred, and the calculated radiometric age of the system may differ from the true age. Implications on the science of dating geological samples using parent-daughter decay systematics are investigated.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".