MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240878677 · doi:10.1063/1.4797025

Readers Respond to ‘God’s Rays’

2005· article· en· W4240878677 on OpenAlex

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

VenuePhysics Today · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEvolution and Science Education
Canadian institutionsParks Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFaithTUTORReading (process)Mathematics educationPsychologyPedagogyEpistemologyPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thanks so much for making “God’s Rays” available online. In my retirement, I tutor senior high-school students, mostly in math, physics, and chemistry, but occasionally in English or biology.Like Bryce DeWitt, I have wondered how youngsters are supposed to study English literature without knowing any biblical references. And I have seen so many kids suffer because some adults pressure them to choose between evolution and Bible-based faith. I try to assure these kids that exposure to the principles of evolution need not erode their faith.Reading DeWitt’s essay could do a lot of people—pastors, parents, politicians—a lot of good. Too bad only the physicists are likely to see it.© 2005 American Institute of Physics.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.002

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.217 · 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