MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1979592655 · doi:10.1139/p04-032

Antisymmetric tensor gauge fields on <i>S</i><sub>4</sub>

2004· article· en· W1979592655 on OpenAlexaffvenue
D. G. C. McKeon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntisymmetric tensorPhysicsMathematical physicsGauge theoryIntroduction to gauge theoryBRST quantizationTensor fieldAntisymmetric relationMathematical descriptions of the electromagnetic fieldTensor (intrinsic definition)Theoretical physicsAbelian groupField (mathematics)Hamiltonian lattice gauge theorySupersymmetric gauge theoryQuantum electrodynamicsQuantum mechanicsGauge anomalyGeometryMathematicsExact solutions in general relativityPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Antisymmetric tensor gauge fields ϕab(η) are formulated on the surface of a sphere S4(η2 = a2) embedded in five dimensions. Such compact manifolds occur in the dimensional reduction of higher dimensional spaces that naturally occur in string theories. The free field model is equivalent to a scalar model on this sphere. Interactions with gauge fields are discussed. It is feasable to formulate models for interactions with U(1) gauge fields Aa(η) that are akin to those of Freedman and Townsend in flat space. In addition, it proves possible to have a novel interaction of ϕab with Aa and a spinor field Ψ(η) on S4 with both Abelian and non-Abelian gauge invariance. In these models, Aa plays the role of a Stueckelberg field.PACS No.: 11.30.Ly

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)0.000
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations5
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physics→Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics→French-language works237,207→