MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1861044148 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.66.105007

Adler-Bell-Jackiw anomaly in the 3-brane scenario

2002· article· en· W1861044148 on OpenAlexafffund
W.F. Chen, Robert B. Mann

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of WinnipegWinnipeg Institute for Theoretical Physics
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBranePhysicsAnomaly (physics)Gravitational anomalyGravitationTheoretical physicsQuantum gravityEmbeddingQuantum field theoryQuantumBrane cosmologyGravitational fieldConformal anomalyMathematical physicsQuantum mechanicsConformal field theoryGeometryConformal mapMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate the ABJ anomaly in the framework of an effective field theory for a 3-brane scenario and show that the contribution from induced gravity on the brane depends on both the topological structure of the bulk space-time and the embedding of the brane in the bulk. This fact implies the existence of a nontrivial vacuum structure of bulk quantum gravity. Furthermore, we argue that this axial gravitational anomaly may not necessarily be canceled by choosing the matter content on the brane since it could be considered as a possible effect from bulk quantum gravity.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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