MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1501786488 · doi:10.1142/s0217732315501527

Generating Einstein gravity, cosmological constant and Higgs mass from restricted Weyl invariance

2015· article· en· W1501786488 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Physics Letters A · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsBishop's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHiggs bosonHiggs fieldScalar fieldMassless particleScale invarianceHiggs mechanismStandard Model (mathematical formulation)Cosmological constantSpacetime

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, it has been pointed out that dimensionless actions in four-dimensional curved spacetime possess a symmetry which goes beyond scale invariance but is smaller than full Weyl invariance. This symmetry was dubbed restricted Weyl invariance. We show that starting with a restricted Weyl invariant action that includes a Higgs sector with no explicit mass, one can generate the Einstein–Hilbert action with cosmological constant and a Higgs mass. The model also contains an extra massless scalar field which couples to the Higgs field (and gravity). If the coupling of this extra scalar field to the Higgs field is negligibly small, this fixes the coefficient of the nonminimal coupling [Formula: see text] between the Higgs field and gravity. Besides the Higgs sector, all the other fields of the Standard Model can be incorporated into the original restricted Weyl invariant action.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Physics Letters ASame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207