Using Brains as Sensors of the Magnetic Fields Produced by Other Brains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of transcranial magnetic stimulations (TMS) show that the human brain is impacted by some magnetic fields (EMFs). Moreover, after a delay, it produces potentials that reveal a subsequent processing of this impact. The human brain might also be sensitive to very weak magnetic fields of extremely low frequencies (vwEMFelf). Namely, to the vwEMelf produced by the brain of other persons when they process visual stimuli. In effect, two studies report that the event-related brain potentials (ERPs) that are evoked by presenting a picture to a participant can be modulated by simultaneously presenting a picture to a partner. To confirm it here, we followed most of the methods of these studies. We recorded the ERPs evoked by presenting, at each trial, the photograph of a face. Simultaneously and, most importantly, privately, we presented a partner with the same or with a different face photograph. ERPs of participants were found to depend on that sameness (p0.001), unbeknownst to them. These joint processing effects (JPEs), confirm a sensitivity of the human brain to the vwEMFelf produced by other brains.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".