MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065322606 · doi:10.1088/0264-9381/30/8/085005

Holonomy spin foam models: boundary Hilbert spaces and time evolution operators

2013· article· en· W2065322606 on OpenAlexaff
Bianca Dittrich, Frank Hellmann, Wojciech Kamiński

Bibliographic record

VenueClassical and Quantum Gravity · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpin networkSpin foamHilbert spaceHolonomySimplicityPhysicsBoundary value problemBoundary (topology)Basis (linear algebra)Pure mathematicsLattice (music)Theoretical physicsMathematical analysisMathematicsMathematical physicsQuantum mechanicsGeometryQuantum gravityLoop quantum gravity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this and the companion paper, a novel holonomy formulation of the so-called spin foam models of lattice gauge gravity is explored. After giving a natural basis for the space of simplicity constraints, we define a universal boundary Hilbert space on which the imposition of different forms of the simplicity constraints can be studied. We detail under which conditions this Hilbert space can be mapped to a Hilbert space of projected spin networks or an ordinary spin network space. These considerations allow us to derive the general form of the transfer operators which generates discrete time evolution. We will describe the transfer operators for some current models on the different boundary Hilbert spaces and highlight the role of the simplicity constraints determining the concrete form of the time evolution operators.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations16
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClassical and Quantum GravitySame topicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity TheoriesFrench-language works237,207