MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064899792 · doi:10.1142/s0217751x04022529

DILATON STABILIZATION IN BRANE GAS COSMOLOGY

2004· article· en· W2064899792 on OpenAlexaff
A. Berndsen, James M. Cline

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Modern Physics A · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsDilatonString cosmologyBrane cosmologyTheoretical physicsBraneCosmologyGravitationString (physics)String theoryClassical mechanicsQuantum mechanicsRelationship between string theory and quantum field theoryQuantum gravityQuantum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brane Gas Cosmology is an M-theory motivated attempt to reconcile aspects of the standard cosmology based on Einstein's theory of general relativity. Dilaton gravity, when incorporating winding p-brane states, has verified the Brandenberger–Vafa mechanism —a string-motivated conjecture which explains why only three of the nine spatial dimensions predicted by string theory grow large. Further investigation of this mechanism has argued for a hierarchy of subspaces, and has shown the internal directions to be stable to initial perturbations. These results, however, are dependent on a rolling dilaton, or varying strength of Newton's gravitational constant GN. In these proceedings we show that it is not possible to stabilize the dilaton and maintain the stability of the internal directions within the standard Brane Gas Cosmology setup.

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)0.001
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations39
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Modern Physics ASame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207