Bibliographic record
Abstract
In today’s physics, opinions on what is time are different. Some physicists deny the existence of time, and others think that time has physical existence. Nevertheless, time was never directly perceived by senses. With our eyes, we perceive the flow of material changes, i.e., motion in space. Our recent proposal is that universal space is time-invariant in the sense there is no physical time which would be the fourth dimension of space. The model of space-time is replaced with the model of time-invariant space, where we perceive the flow of material changes. In past years, neuroscience has discovered that linear psychological time “past-present-future” has origin in neuronal activity of the brain. An observer is experiencing the flow of material changes in the frame of psychological time. With eyes, we do not perceive some physical time in which material changes run. The observer perceives a stream of changes that run in the time-invariant space. This stream of changes the observer experiences in the brain through the psychological liner time. In the universe, there is no linear time past‐present‐future, material changes run in time-invariant space. An observer only perceives changes (not time) and he experiences changes in the frame of psychological time. The observer (the subject) is beyond psychological time, and it does not change during a human lifetime. Observer can be understood as the function of consciousness.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".