MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1917981180 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2016-0158

Consequences of three modified forms of holographic dark energy models in bulk–brane interaction

2017· article· en· W1917981180 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Antonio Pasqua, Surajit Chattopadhyay, Ratbay Myrzakulov

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsScale factor (cosmology)Dark energyBraneUniverseHubble's lawCutoffEquation of stateTheoretical physicsPower lawHolographyDark matterMetric expansion of spaceCosmologyMathematical physicsAstrophysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we study the effects that are produced by the interaction between a brane Universe and the bulk in which the Universe is embedded. Taking into account the effects produced by the interaction between a brane Universe and the bulk, we derived the equation of state parameter ωD for three different models of dark energy (DE): holographic DE model with infrared cutoff given by the Granda–Oliveros cutoff, the modified holographic Ricci DE model, and a DE model that is a function of the Hubble parameter H squared and to higher derivatives of H. Moreover, we have considered two different cases of scale factor (namely, the power law and the emergent ones). A nontrivial contribution of the DE is observed to be different from the standard matter fields confined to the brane. Such contribution has a monotonically decreasing behavior upon the evolution of the Universe for the emergent scenario of the scale factor, while monotonically increasing for the power-law form of the scale factor a(t).

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physics→Same topicCosmology and Gravitation Theories→French-language works237,207→