MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Detecting the location of pain by transferring its sensation from a person to a another one by EM waves in BBI technology

2025· article· W4415465424 on OpenAlexaff
Alireza Sepehri, Phoka C. Rathebe, Raul Valverde, Somayyeh Shoorvazi

Bibliographic record

VenueEdelweiss Applied Science and Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPain sensationSensationFeelingAntenna (radio)Sensory system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients in a coma are unable to express their problems, including pain. Therefore, it is necessary to examine their feelings, including pain and its location, in a reliable manner. This research presents a novel method for transmitting feelings and pain between two individuals through the exchange of waves. The method involves designing an antenna that captures the patient's blood waves, amplifies them, and transmits them to the blood of a healthy person. This antenna is composed of materials such as copper, iron, magnetic generators, ionized liquids, and blood from animals like rabbits. Blood molecules, such as hemoglobin, which contain oxygen and iron, exchange information with cells and sensory stimuli, such as neurons, by receiving and emitting spin waves. These waves are then transmitted to biological antennas and the blood of the second person. Consequently, the healthy individual can perceive the patient's pain and determine its location. Prior to the transfer process, the voltage at various points on the bodies of both the patient and the healthy person is analyzed and simulated using computer models.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEdelweiss Applied Science and TechnologySame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207