MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051872811 · doi:10.1142/9789812704917_0002

COSMOLOGY IN HORAVA-WITTEN M-THEORY

2003· article· en· W2051872811 on OpenAlexaff
R. Arnowitt, James B. Dent, Bhaskar Dutta

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRelativity and Gravitational Theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCosmologyPhysicsComputer scienceTheoretical physicsAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cosmology of the Horava-Witten M-Theory reduced to five dimensions retaining the volume modulus is considered. Brane matter is considered as a perturbation on the vacuum solution, and the question of under what circumstances does the theory give rise to the standard RWF cosmology is examined. It is found that for static solutions, one obtains a consistent solution of the bulk field equations and the brane boundary conditions only for pure radiation on the branes. (A similar result holds if additional 5-branes are added in the bulk.) If one stabilizes the fifth dimension in an ad hoc manner, a similar inconsistency still occurs (at least for a Hubble constant that has no dependence on y, the fifth dimension.) Within this framework, the possibility of recovering the RWF cosmology still remains if the volume modulus and /or the distance between branes becomes time dependent, under which circumstances the Hubble constant must then depend on y (unless the fifth dimension and volume modulus expand at precisely the same rate). The problem of obtaining a satisfactory cosmology in 5 dimensional (5D) theories so that the square of the Hubble constant H is proportional

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRelativity and Gravitational TheoryFrench-language works237,207