Bibliographic record
Abstract
A century ago, Paul Langevin [C. R. 173, 831 (1921)], through his influence, convinced the scientific community that Einstein's theories of relativity were correct and could explain the Sagnac effect. A simple note in Comptes Rendus was all it took to silence many prominent skeptical scientists. The relativity skeptics had pointed to Sagnac's experiment [C. R. 157, 1410 (1913)] with the interference of counter rotating light beams as proof that the speed of light was not the same in both directions, contrary to the key postulate in Einstein's theory. Langevin showed that the result was also explained by relativity. The rest is history, and relativity has remained a center piece of theoretical physics ever since. Langevin had been captivated by solar eclipse observations of a shifted star pattern near the sun as reported by Eddington [Report on the Relativity Theory of Gravitation (Fleetway Press, Ltd., London, 1920)]. This was taken as proof positive for Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. The case of a light beam split into two beams, which propagate in opposite directions around a circuit, has an analog in a simple thought experiment—a speed test for runners. Two runners can be timed on a running track with the runners going around the track in opposite directions. Two stop watches will display the time for each runner's return to the starting position. The arithmetic difference in time shown on each stop watch will provide the differences in speed between the two runners. If the two speeds are the same, the time difference will be zero. It would not make any sense for one of the stop watches to measure a negative time, that is, time moving into the past. In fact, the idea is absurd! However, Langevin did just that, assigned the time for light to travel in one direction as positive while the time for the light to traverse in the opposite direction as negative, moving into the past! By so doing, Langevin reproduced Sagnac's expression and declared that relativity explains Sagnac's experiment. Langevin was wrong!
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 | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".