MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158537282 · doi:10.5539/jel.v10n3p83

Luminescence in the Mineral Realm to Teach Basic Physics Concepts

2021· article· en· W3158537282 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michele Lustrino

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicVarious Chemistry Research Topics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSapienza Università di Roma
KeywordsLuminescenceElectromagnetic spectrumIncandescent light bulbElectromagnetic radiationThermoluminescencePhotoelectric effectRadiationPhysicsOpticsOptical radiationVisible spectrumPhotonUltravioletWavelengthOptoelectronics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Every substance is associated to emission of electromagnetic radiation whose peaks are essentially influenced by temperature. Hot bodies (i.e., at T >700 °C) emit electromagnetic radiation in the field of visible light (incandescent light). The radiation emitted by cold bodies (i.e., at normal ambient conditions) in the visible light range is defined as luminescence. Luminescent light is emitted by exciting substances by means of electron fluxes (e.g., those generated in a cathode ray tube), using photon fluxes associated to electromagnetic radiations with wavelengths lower than ~390 nm (fluorescence), by mechanical stress (triboluminescence), by small temperature increase (thermoluminescence) or by biological processes (bioluminescence). The value of luminescence demonstrations in teaching is unique. Indeed, by illuminating specific minerals and other substances (such as chicken eggs, seashells, fossils, wood, scorpions, soda drinks) with non expensive ultraviolet (UV) lights, it is possible to introduce the audience to several scientific arguments. Among these, the most important are: a) the concept of radiation and electromagnetic spectrum, including the g- and x-ray as well as the radio wave extremes; b) the discovery and the essence of natural radioactivity; c) the concept itself of visible light and the nature of the colours; d) the adaptability of the human eyes to the environment; e) the principles of the atomic structure as well as the basic concepts of energy quantization, including the photoelectric effect; f) the basic aspects of black-body radiation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.012

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicVarious Chemistry Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207