MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2219214506 · doi:10.1017/s1743921315009850

Limits to Seeing High-Redshift Galaxies Due to Planck-Scale-Induced Blurring

2015· article· en· W2219214506 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Steinbring

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Astronomical Union · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsRedshiftPlanck lengthAstrophysicsGalaxyPlanckQuantum gravityLength scaleRandom walkSpacetimePhotonPlanck scaleMathematical physicsQuantumQuantum mechanicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

If spacetime is “foamy” travel along a lightpath must be subject to continual, random distance fluctuations ± δ l proportional to Planck length lP ~ 10−35 m (Lieu & Hillman 2003). Although each “kick” by itself is tiny, these may accumulate. Accounting for redshifted (bluer) emitted photons, over a cosmological distance L = (1+z)LC for co-moving distance LC, the resultant phase perturbations Δ φ = 2π δ l/λ at observed wavelength λ could grow independently of telescope diameter D to a maximum of Δφmax=(1+z)Δφ0 (Steinbring 2007) where Δφ0=2π a0 (lPα/λ)L1 - α follows Ng et al. (2003). Here a0 ~ 1 and α specifies the quantum-gravity model: 1/2 implies a random walk and 2/3 is consistent with the holographic principle; a vanishingly small ΔφP=Δφmax/[(1 + z) a0 (L/lP)1 - α]=2π lP/λ is approached when α=1.

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)0.024
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.007
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.243
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Astronomical UnionSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207