MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014585517 · doi:10.1155/2014/718251

The Mass of Graviton and Its Relation to the Number of Information according to the Holographic Principle

2014· article· lv· W2014585517 on OpenAlex
Ioannis Haranas, Ioannis Gkigkitzis

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

VenueInternational Scholarly Research Notices · 2014
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Mechanics and Applications
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGravitonRelation (database)Computer scienceHolographyTheoretical physicsGravitationPhysicsAstronomyData miningOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate the relation of the mass of the graviton to the number of information N in a flat universe. As a result we find that the mass of the graviton scales as [Formula: see text]. Furthermore, we find that the number of gravitons contained inside the observable horizon is directly proportional to the number of information N; that is, N gr ∝ N. Similarly, the total mass of gravitons that exist in the universe is proportional to the number of information N; that is, [Formula: see text]. In an effort to establish a relation between the graviton mass and the basic parameters of the universe, we find that the mass of the graviton is simply twice the Hubble mass m H as it is defined by Gerstein et al. (2003), times the square root of the quantity q - 1/2, where q is the deceleration parameter of the universe. In relation to the geometry of the universe we find that the mass of the graviton varies according to the relation [Formula: see text], and therefore m gr obviously controls the geometry of the space time through a deviation of the geodesic spheres from the spheres of Euclidean metric.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score0.897

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.333 · 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