MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157369149 · doi:10.3389/frym.2021.576034

How Do Scientists Know Dark Matter Exists?

2021· article· en· W3157369149 on OpenAlex
Vishnu Prithiv Bhathe, Christina Brennan, Stephanie Ellis, Emily Moynes, Kevin Graham, Sean J. Landsman

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

VenueFrontiers for Young Minds · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicDark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDark matterFace (sociological concept)PhysicsUniverseAstrophysicsEpistemologyTheoretical physicsPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is still a lot we do not know about the universe. Understanding the existence and make-up of a mysterious substance called dark matter is one of the leading challenges scientists face today. There are many theories about what dark matter could be, but we have yet to understand its true nature. How do we even know that such a thing exists? The greatest challenge for studying dark matter is that we cannot see it. In this article, we will discuss how scientists use science and observations from telescopes to predict the existence of dark matter and why scientists think it pervades every corner of our universe.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.751

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.212 · 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