MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2160202943 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.87.043518

Backreaction: Gauge and frame dependences

2013· article· en· W2160202943 on OpenAlexaff
Iain A. Brown, Joey Latta, A. A. Coley

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsCosmological perturbation theoryGauge (firearms)Dark energyCurvatureNewtonian potentialHubble's lawGauge theoryConformal mapCosmologyMathematical physicsQuantum electrodynamicsTheoretical physicsClassical mechanicsQuantum mechanicsGeometryGravitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cosmological backreaction from perturbations is clearly gauge dependent, and obviously depends on the choice of averaged Hubble rate. We consider two common choices of Hubble rate and advocate the use of comoving volume-preserving gauges. We highlight two examples valid to an appropriate order in perturbation theory---uniform curvature gauge, which is as close to volume-preserving as possible, and a spatially-traceless uniform cold dark matter gauge, which preserves the volume to linear order. We demonstrate the strong gauge and frame dependences in averaging. In traceless uniform cold dark matter gauge the backreaction exhibits a strong ultraviolet divergence and can be tuned to an arbitrary magnitude with an appropriate choice of smoothing scale. In uniform curvature gauge, we find that for a choice of Hubble rate locked to the spatial surface, the backreaction vanishes identically, while for a Hubble rate defined from a fluid's expansion scalar, the effective energy density at the current epoch in an Einstein--de Sitter universe is ${\ensuremath{\Omega}}_{\mathrm{eff}}\ensuremath{\approx}5\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{10}^{\ensuremath{-}4}$, slightly bigger than, but in broad agreement with, previous results in conformal Newtonian gauge.

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 score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations11
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology→Same topicCosmology and Gravitation Theories→French-language works237,207→