Bibliographic record
Abstract
Simulation shows that general relativity would lead to the existence of black holes if gravitation is always attractive. However, although we observed an invisible and extremely heavy object governs the orbits of stars at the center of our galaxy, we still cannot determine the existence of a black hole. Thus, one may ask whether black holes actually exist. Einstein’s general relativity has been established, because its prediction on the bending of light rays has been confirmed by observation. However, Einstein’s prediction on the increment of weight for a piece of metal as the temperature increases is proven incorrect by experiments, which actually show a reduction of weight. This leads to the necessary existence of repulsive gravitational force, which has been demonstrated by a charged capacitor hovering above the earth. Thus, Einstein, Newton, Galileo, and Maxwell all made the error of overlooking the repulsive gravitational charge-mass interaction. Thus, it is necessary to rejustify the existence of black holes, because gravity is not always attractive. Moreover, repulsive gravitational force makes it necessary to extend general relativity to a five-dimensional theory. Thus, to find out whether black holes exist, it is necessary to investigate the repulsive gravitation and a five-dimensional space.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".