MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2262121840 · doi:10.1007/jhep06(2016)158

Non-relativistic scale anomalies

2016· article· en· W2262121840 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersPlanning and Budgeting Committee of the Council for Higher Education of IsraelIndustry CanadaIsrael Science FoundationIsraeli Centers for Research ExcellenceInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueGovernment of Canada
KeywordsFoliation (geology)GalileanScale (ratio)Causality (physics)AnisotropyGalilean moonsSpacetimeField (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We extend the cohomological analysis in arXiv:1410.5831 of anisotropic Lifshitz scale anomalies. We consider non-relativistic theories with a dynamical critical exponent z = 2 with or without non-relativistic boosts and a particle number symmetry. We distinguish between cases depending on whether the time direction does or does not induce a foliation structure. We analyse both 1 + 1 and 2 + 1 spacetime dimensions. In 1 + 1 dimensions we find no scale anomalies with Galilean boost symmetries. The anomalies in 2 + 1 dimensions with Galilean boosts and a foliation structure are all B-type and are identical to the Lifshitz case in the purely spatial sector. With Galilean boosts and without a foliation structure we find also an A-type scale anomaly. There is an infinite ladder of B-type anomalies in the absence of a foliation structure with or without Galilean boosts. We discuss the relation between the existence of a foliation structure and the causality of the field theory.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations29
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy Physics→Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics→French-language works237,207→