Bibliographic record
Abstract
The question of what magnetism is vital to quantum physics. We know what all other quantum phenomenon is, but we did not know what magnetism is. It is not enough to say it is a force because of a charge. That force must be something, for consistencies sake it had to be tested. This paper was written in order to confirm the results that were received in the experiments that took place that led to the paper “Magnetism: Insights from the Thomas Young Experiment” where it was concluded the magnetic phenomenon is both a particle and a wave. Will different interference patterns confirm a khumalon and wave like behaviour? The khumalon is the name of the particle associated with magnetic phenomenon. This paper concludes by confirming what was discovered in mentioned paper. Magnetism organizes into a wave no matter the interference. Understanding this reality, it allows us to understand what is happening with simple magnetic interactions. When like poles meet because they can not occupy the same space they push each other. Opposite poles are antiparticles to each other and annihilate each other. South pole scientifically speaking is not attracted to the north pole, the reason why the magnets slam each other is because they are closing a magnetic vacuum caused by the particles annihilating each other. We can now start theorizing on why a lodestone attracts iron because we now know we are dealing with a particle.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".