MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097817354 · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2009/12/014

Probing interaction and spatial curvature in the holographic dark energy model

2009· article· en· W2097817354 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsDark energyCurvatureHolographyDark matterCosmologyCosmological perturbation theoryClassical mechanicsTheoretical physicsAstrophysicsOpticsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we place observational constraints on the interaction and spatial curvature in the holographic dark energy model. We consider three kinds of phenomenological interactions between holographic dark energy and matter, i.e., the interaction term Q is proportional to the energy densities of dark energy (rho(A)), matter (p(m)), and matter plus dark energy (p(m) + p(A)). For probing the interaction and spatial curvature in the holographic dark energy model, we use the latest observational data including the type la supernovae (SNIa) Constitution data, the shift parameter of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) given by the five-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP5) observations, and the baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) measurement, from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). Our results show that, the interaction and spatial curvature in the holographic dark energy model are both rather small. Besides, it is interesting to find that there exists significant degeneracy between the phenomenological interaction and the spatial curvature in the holographic dark energy model.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.228
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.254
Teacher spread0.245 · 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