MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1880673613 · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2008/12/002

Can the Copernican principle be tested using the cosmic neutrino background?

2008· article· en· W1880673613 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpace Science and Extraterrestrial Life
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCopernican principleNeutrinoCosmic neutrino backgroundCOSMIC cancer databaseSupernovaNeutrino oscillationNeutrino detectorCosmic rayCosmic background radiation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Copernican principle, stating that we do not occupy any special place in our universe, is usually taken for granted in modern cosmology. However recent observational data of supernova indicate that we may live in the under-dense center of our universe, which makes the Copernican principle challenged. It thus becomes urgent and important to test the Copernican principle via cosmological observations. Taking into account that unlike the cosmic photons, the cosmic neutrinos of different energies come from the different places to us along the different worldlines, we here propose cosmic neutrino background as a test of the Copernican principle. It is shown that from the theoretical perspective cosmic neutrino background can allow one to determine whether the Copernican principle is valid or not, but to implement such an observation the larger neutrino detectors are called for.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.239 · 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