MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2007519474 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.84.083506

Generalized Swiss-cheese cosmologies. II. Spherical dust

2011· article· en· W2007519474 on OpenAlexaff
Cédric Grenon, Kayll Lake

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoundary (topology)HomogeneousCosmologySurface (topology)PhysicsDrop (telecommunication)Theoretical physicsBoundary layerBoundary value problemClassical mechanicsMechanicsGeometryMathematicsMathematical analysisStatistical physicsAstrophysicsQuantum mechanicsEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The generalized Swiss-cheese model, consisting of a Lema\^{\i}tre-Tolman (inhomogeneous dust) region matched, by way of a comoving boundary surface, onto a Robertson-Walker background of homogeneous dust, has become a standard construction in modern cosmology. Here, we ask if this construction can be made more realistic by introducing some evolution of the boundary surface. The answer we find is no. To maintain a boundary surface using the Darmois-Israel junction conditions, as opposed to the introduction of a surface layer, the boundary must remain exactly comoving. The options are to drop the assumption of dust or allow the development of surface layers. Either option fundamentally changes the original construction.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology→Same topicCosmology and Gravitation Theories→French-language works237,207→