MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112414784 · doi:10.1007/s10714-012-1375-y

Shape dynamics in 2 + 1 dimensions

2012· article· en· W2112414784 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueGeneral Relativity and Gravitation · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekGovernment of CanadaFoundational Questions InstituteSilicon Valley Community Foundation
KeywordsPhase spaceHamiltonian (control theory)Conformal mapDifferential geometryHamiltonian mechanicsGeneral relativityHilbert spaceTorusGauge theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shape Dynamics is a formulation of General Relativity where refoliation invariance is traded for local spatial conformal invariance. In this paper we explicitly construct Shape Dynamics for a torus universe in 2 + 1 dimensions through a linking gauge theory that ensures dynamical equivalence with General Relativity. The Hamiltonian we obtain is formally a reduced phase space Hamiltonian. The construction of the Shape Dynamics Hamiltonian on higher genus surfaces is not explicitly possible, but we give an explicit expansion of the Shape Dynamics Hamiltonian for large CMC volume. The fact that all local constraints are linear in momenta allows us to quantize these explicitly under a certain assumption on the kinematic Hilbert space, and the quantization problem for Shape Dynamics turns out to be equivalent to reduced phase space quantization. We consider the large CMC-volume asymptotics of conformal transformations of the wave function. We then discuss the similarity of Shape Dynamics on the 2-torus with the explicitly constructible strong gravity Shape Dynamics Hamiltonian in higher dimensions.

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 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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

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 head0.249
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneral Relativity and GravitationSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207