MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010825786 · doi:10.1088/0264-9381/17/13/309

Self-similar spherically symmetric cosmological models with a perfect fluid and a scalar field

2000· article· en· W2010825786 on OpenAlexaff
A. A. Coley, Martin Goliath

Bibliographic record

VenueClassical and Quantum Gravity · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsPerfect fluidScalar fieldBarotropic fluidInitial singularitySingularityPhase portraitAttractorClassical mechanicsScalar (mathematics)Massless particlePhase spaceTheoretical physicsMathematical physicsStatistical physicsUniverseMathematical analysisQuantum mechanicsDe Sitter universeMechanicsGeometryBifurcation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self-similar, spherically symmetric cosmological models with a perfect fluid and a scalar field with an exponential potential are investigated. New variables are defined which lead to a compact state space, and dynamical systems methods are utilised to analyse the models. Due to the existence of monotone functions global dynamical results can be deduced. In particular, all of the future and past attractors for these models are obtained and the global results are discussed. The essential physical results are that initially expanding models always evolve away from a massless scalar field model with an initial singularity and, depending on the parameters of the models, either recollapse to a second singularity or expand forever towards a flat power-law inflationary model. The special cases in which there is no barotropic fluid and in which the scalar field is massless are considered in more detail in order to illustrate the asymptotic results. Some phase portraits are presented and the intermediate dynamics and hence the physical properties of the models are discussed.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations27
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClassical and Quantum GravitySame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207