MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7106811357 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.17725675

A Geobioelectromagnetic Theory of Psychological Time: Planetary-scale Coherence Fields and the Reversal of the Subjective Temporal Arrow

2025· preprint· W7106811357 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2025
Typepreprint
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicParanormal Experiences and Beliefs
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Arrow of timeAnalogyEntropy (arrow of time)ArrowCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This theoretical manuscript presents a novel, synthetic model explaining themalleability of the human psychological arrow of time. We propose that specific geologicalformations, such as the ancient rock of Newfoundland and the vast, thrustingpeaks of the Himalayas, generate powerful, localized electromagnetic anomalieswhich act as distinct coherence fields. We theorize that humans, as carbon-basedopen systems, can interact with these fields, leading to a phase transition in cognitivestructure. This transition is modeled through a synthesis of concepts: thethermodynamics of entropy (Boltzmann’s S = k logW), the logical states of information(Belnap-Dunn logic), and a phase diagram analogy based on carbonallotropes and steel metallurgy. The model posits that immersion in a planetarycoherence field can reduce cognitive entropy (ΔS < 0), resulting in a measurableslowing or subjective reversal of psychological time, experienced as healing and rejuvenation.This framework provides a testable, biophysical basis for the reputedeffects of sacred sites and outlines a potential new field of geotherapeutic intervention.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.252 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicParanormal Experiences and BeliefsFrench-language works237,207