MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088297006 · doi:10.1119/10.0002063

Smartphones and Gravitational Acceleration I: Overview

2020· article· en· W3088297006 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Physics Teacher · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicExperimental and Theoretical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquatorGravitational accelerationPhysicsAccelerationGravitationRADIUSLatitudeCentrifugal forceBulgeEarth's rotationRotation (mathematics)GeodesyMechanicsClassical mechanicsAstronomyGeologyStarsGeometryMathematicsRotational speed

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Geodesy is a very active and essential research discipline in geophysics but it is not a commonly studied subject at the secondary school or junior post-secondary levels. Far more frequently, gravity and gravitational acceleration are discussed, to some extent, in elementary kinematics or classical mechanics courses. This often takes the form of the force acting on a body or bodies due to gravity, or that the acceleration (agrav) of a free-falling body is 9.8(1) m/s2—which implies the setting of the question is at Earth’s surface. While the latter is a reasonable and practical approximation, agrav observed over the surface of Earth varies and is dependent on several factors. These are normally related to elevation and latitude variations caused by Earth’s rotation. Earth’s rotation contributes negatively to agrav at the equator due to the centrifugal force outward and equatorial bulge, which makes the equatorial radius larger than the polar radius. Offsetting this partially is the positive contribution to agrav at the equator caused by the equatorial bulge because of the extra mass comprising the bulge.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.429
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.236 · 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