MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1857799932 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.024013

Wilson loops in nonperturbative quantum gravity

2015· article· en· W1857799932 on OpenAlexfundno aff
J. Ambjørn, A. Görlich, J. Jurkiewicz, R. Loll

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Research CouncilNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekStichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der MaterieMountain Equipment Co-operativeNatur og Univers, Det Frie Forskningsråd
KeywordsQuantum gravityPhysicsLoop quantum gravityObservableSpin foamQuantum geometryGravitationWilson loopGroup field theoryTheoretical physicsClassical mechanicsQuantumLattice (music)Hořava–Lifshitz gravityQuantum mechanicsQuantum dynamicsQuantum process

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By explicit construction, we show that one can in a simple way introduce and measure gravitational holonomies and Wilson loops in lattice formulations of nonperturbative quantum gravity based on (causal) dynamical triangulations. We use this setup to investigate a class of Wilson line observables associated with the world line of a point particle coupled to quantum gravity, and deduce from their expectation values that the underlying holonomies cover the group manifold of SO(4) uniformly.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.326
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology→Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics→French-language works237,207→