MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2092860953 · doi:10.1007/jhep04(2014)032

Gravitational forces on a codimension-2 brane

2014· article· en· W2092860953 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPerimeter Institute
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueIndustry CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAbdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical PhysicsGovernment of Canada
KeywordsSupergravityGravitationBraneScalar (mathematics)Event horizonExtra dimensionsSchwarzschild radiusBlack hole (networking)Brane cosmologyCrossover

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We compute the gravitational response of six dimensional gauged, chiral supergravity to localized stress energy on one of two space-filling branes, including the effects of compactifying the extra dimensions and brane back-reaction. We find a broad class of exact solutions, including various black-brane solutions. Several approximate solutions are also described, such as the near-horizon geometry of a small black hole which is argued to be approximately described by a 6D Schwarzschild (or Kerr) black hole, with event horizon appropriately modified to encode the brane back-reaction. The general linearized far-field solutions are found in the 4D regime very far from the source, and all integration constants are related to physical quantities describing the branes and the localized energy source. The localized source determines two of these, corresponding to the source mass and the size of the strength of a coupling to a 4D scalar mode whose mass is parametrically smaller than the KK scale. At large distances the solutions agree with those of 4D general relativity, but for an intermediate range of distances (larger than the KK scale) the solutions better fit a Brans-Dicke theory. For a realistic choice of parameters the KK scale could lie at a micron, while the crossover to Brans-Dicke behaviour could occur at around 10 microns. While allowed by present data this points to potentially measurable changes to Newton’s Law arising at distances larger than the KK scale.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy Physics→Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics→French-language works237,207→