MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4400323045 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2023-0106

Toy models of gravitational shielding in the framework of Newtonian theory of gravitation

2024· article· en· W4400323045 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gersh O. Berim

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsGravitationNewtonian fluidParameterized post-Newtonian formalismClassical mechanicsElectromagnetic shieldingScalar theories of gravitationGravitational accelerationClassical field theoryTheoretical physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the framework of Newtonian theory of gravitation, three toy models of a hypothetical gravitational shield (GS) are developed. To satisfy the energy conservation law which is violated in the presence of GS, an existence of a special kind of energy (“G-energy”) responsible for shielding and stored in GS is postulated. The models differ from each other by the details of the spatial dependence of the net gravitational acceleration in the presence of GS as well as by the dependence of that acceleration on the amount of G-energy in GS. As an example, the rotation of a dumbbell like object located at the boundary between the regions of space where gravity is affected and not affected by GS is analyzed in details. The motivation to study gravitational shielding, the very existence of which is challenged, is the presence of steadily repeating attempts to observe this phenomenon. No doubt, such attempts will continue in the future. The results obtained in the present paper could be useful in designing such a research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physics→Same topicCosmology and Gravitation Theories→French-language works237,207→