MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4360979993 · doi:10.5539/apr.v15n1p24

Measuring Planck’s Constant With Compton Scattering

2023· article· en· W4360979993 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 · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadioactive Decay and Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsPlanck lengthPlanck energyPlanck massPlanckPlanck constantConstant (computer programming)Compton scatteringPlanck timePhysical constantQuantum mechanicsElectronGravitationQuantumQuantum gravity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Measured values of the electron mass and Compton wavelength yield a value of Planck’s constant with a relative standard uncertainty of 3 × 10−10. This is only slightly larger than the 1.3 × 10−10 relative standard uncertainty in measurements performed using the Kibble balance. Compton scattering presents an alternative pathway for improving the value of Planck’s constant. Natural units of length, mass, and time offer viable solutions for improving the values of physical constants. While extensive values of the Planck units lie beyond the reach of present-day instrumentation, certain product and quotient pairs of Planck units such as the speed of light can be measured with relatively high precision. Better measurements of certain unit pairs will improve the value of the gravitational constant.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.523
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.176 · 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