Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Much of the history of physics has been characterized by the effort to understand, in great detail, increasingly smaller pieces of nature; beginning with classical particles and waves, and progressing to molecules, atoms, nuclei, and elementary particles. This trend became especially pronounced in the twentieth century with the development of sophisticated experi mental apparatus capable of probing deeply into nature’s innermost parts. Aside from the sense that one is closer to reality at the deeper levels of nature, it is plausible to assume that a clear understanding of the small pieces of nature will lead to a clear view of the large picture. The whole is presumed equal to the sum of its parts. This approach is sometimes call reductionism. More recently, in certain areas of physics, the opposite methodology has proved fruitful. New structure and organization may become evident when there is complexity, large numbers of parts, several degrees of freedom, or even just sufficient energy to make a discrete change in the system. Indeed, sometimes the whole is more than the sum of its parts. This creation of new richness of behavior often occurs in the study of processes that are pushed well beyond their equilibrium configurations. Researchers find new levels of organization, new complexity that does not seem to be obvious from a consideration of the individual parts of the process (Prigogine 1980). For example, if reactants are forced rapidly into certain chemical reactions, the resultant products may show spatial or temporal ordering (Zhabotinskii 1991). Or convective systems with large temperature gradients may exhibit new structural or dynamic organization of fluid motion. Even the motion of the humble pendulum achieves a new level of complexity if it is driven energetically at nonresonant frequencies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.003 |
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".