MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109011078 · doi:10.1088/0264-9381/29/7/075009

The link between general relativity and shape dynamics

2012· article· en· W2109011078 on OpenAlexaff
Henrique Gomes, Tim Koslowski

Bibliographic record

VenueClassical and Quantum Gravity · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsTheoretical physicsGauge theoryGeneral relativityIntroduction to gauge theoryGauge symmetryClassical mechanicsMathematical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We define the concept of a linking theory and show how two equivalent gauge theories possessing different gauge symmetries generically arise from a linking theory. We show that under special circumstances a linking theory can be constructed from a given gauge theory through ‘Kretchmannization’ of a given gauge theory, which becomes one of the two theories related by the linking theory. The other, so-called dual gauge theory, is then a gauge theory of the symmetry underlying the ‘Kretschmannization’. We then prove the equivalence of general relativity and Shape Dynamics, a theory with fixed foliation but spatial conformal invariance. This streamlines the rather complicated construction of this equivalence performed in Gomes et al (2011 Class. Quantum Grav. 28 045005). We use this streamlined argument to extend the result to general relativity with asymptotically flat boundary conditions. The improved understanding of linking theories naturally leads to the Lagrangian formulation of shape dynamics, which allows us to partially relate the degrees of freedom.

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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations114
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClassical and Quantum GravitySame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207