MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244841684 · doi:10.5539/apr.v6n2p28

Annihilation Mechanisms

2014· article· en· W4244841684 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physics Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuon and positron interactions and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnnihilationPhysicsPositroniumPhotonScatteringProcess (computing)AntimatterTheoretical physicsElectronParticle physicsQuantum mechanicsPositronComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper develops an ontologically rich explanation of the inner mechanics of the annihilation process, starting from a non-local hidden-variable (NLHV) design. This explains the process in terms of the handedness of matter and antimatter, the interaction of the electron and antielectron as they approach, the collapse of their discrete force structures and their reformation into photon structures. The process is more one of remanufacture than destruction. The resulting Cordus theory successfully explains para- and ortho-positronium annihilation. It explains the different photons output, the relative difference in lifetimes, and why Bhabha scattering sometimes happens instead. The theory exposes a deeper common mechanism for annihilation, pair-creation, and bonding.

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 categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.289 · 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