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 OpenAlexaff
Ioannis Haranas, Ioannis Gkigkitzis

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.039
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

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

Citations40
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Scholarly Research NoticesSame topicQuantum Mechanics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207