NETWORKS AS RENORMALIZED MODELS FOR EMERGENT BEHAVIOR IN PHYSICAL SYSTEMS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Networks are paradigms for describing complex biological, social and technological systems. Here I argue that networks provide a coherent framework to construct coarse-grained models for many different physical systems. To elucidate these ideas, I discuss two long-standing problems. The first concerns the structure and dynamics of magnetic fields in the solar corona, as exemplified by sunspots that startled Galileo almost 400 years ago. We discovered that the magnetic structure of the corona embodies a scale free network, with spots at all scales. A network model representing the three-dimensional geometry of magnetic fields, where links rewire and nodes merge when they collide in space, gives quantitative agreement with available data, and suggests new measurements. Seismicity is addressed in terms of relations between events without imposing space-time windows. A metric estimates the correlation between any two earthquakes. Linking strongly correlated pairs, and ignoring pairs with weak correlation organizes the spatio-temporal process into a sparse, directed, weighted network. New scaling laws for seismicity are found. For instance, the aftershock decay rate decreases as 1/t in time up to a correlation time, t[omori]. An estimate from the data gives t[omori] to be about one year for small magnitude 3 earthquakes, about 1400 years for the Landers event, and roughly 26,000 years for the earthquake causing the 2004 Asian tsunami. Our results confirm Kagan's conjecture that aftershocks can rumble on for centuries.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".