MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046596132 · doi:10.5539/apr.v12n4p85

Astronomical Constants and Universal Code in Holy Book

2020· article· en· W3046596132 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammad Tayseer Al-Tamimi

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physics Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHistorical Astronomy and Related Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimple (philosophy)Code (set theory)Period (music)Theoretical physicsComputer scienceConstant (computer programming)Test (biology)MathematicsCalculus (dental)PhysicsEpistemologyPhilosophyAestheticsGeologySet (abstract data type)Programming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the beginning of 1995, I was looking to produce a new concept of the Astronomical Period (AP) which may be determined by the shortest period of Lunar years which this period includes leap years and common years, just to get a simple formula for calculating the average length of the lunar year where I finally deduced the first formula about this average by using the simple math (the four elementary arithmetic operations). By this rule, I methodically educed what I essentially considered it as an acceptable consequence which, indeed, encouraged me to do more research about the best resources that required to deal with the concept of (AP) where I found something like the hidden signals in Islamic Holy Book (The Great Qur’an) which led me by the elicitation method to get the perfect astronomical constants besides of an evolving conclusion about what I considered it as a scientific guide to the universal code. What the exiting in this research is: these (perfect astronomical constants) had successfully passed the test of three physical laws in motion which means that the hypothesis of this research (elicitation method) is not arbitrary, and the conclusions of this research had truly deduced by innovative scientific basis.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physics ResearchSame topicHistorical Astronomy and Related StudiesFrench-language works237,207