MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109496206 · doi:10.1086/309115

Solar System Tests of Higher Dimensional Gravity

2000· article· en· W2109496206 on OpenAlexaff
Hongya Liu, James Overduin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsTests of general relativityPrecessionGeneral relativityApsidal precessionSchwarzschild metricGeodesyNutationEphemerisAstrophysicsClassical mechanicsAstronomySatellitePlanetGeologyGravitational redshift

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The classical tests of general relativity—light deflection, time delay, and perihelion shift—are applied, along with the geodetic precession test, to the five-dimensional extension of the theory known as Kaluza-Klein gravity, using an analog of the four-dimensional Schwarzschild metric. The perihelion advance and geodetic precession calculations are generalized for the first time to situations in which the components of momentum and spin along the extra coordinate do not vanish. Existing data on light-bending around the Sun using long-baseline radio interferometry, ranging to Mars using the Viking Lander, and the perihelion precession of Mercury all constrain a small parameter b associated with the extra part of the metric to be less than | b | < 0.07 in the solar system. An order of magnitude increase in sensitivity is possible from perihelion precession, if better limits on solar oblateness become available. Measurement of geodetic precession by the Gravity Probe B satellite will improve this significantly, probing values of b with an accuracy of one part in 10 4 or more.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations74
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207