MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320812631 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2013-0325

Theoretical constraints on kinetic k-essence dark energy model in El-Nabulsi fractional action cosmology

2013· article· en· W2320812631 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Antonio Pasqua, Surajit Chattopadhyay

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAnsatzDark energyKinetic termScalar fieldCosmologyScale factor (cosmology)Theoretical physicsKinetic energyMetric expansion of spaceEquation of stateMathematical physicsAction (physics)UniverseScalar (mathematics)Classical mechanicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, we considered an effective scalar field theory described by a Lagrangian with a noncanonical kinetic term, which leads to accelerated expansion in the present Universe and is known as k-essence in the framework of the fractional action cosmology recently introduced by El-Nabulsi. We have chosen a particular ansatz for the scale factor and the scalar field, in which both are described as a power-law of the time, t. We have studied the behavior of some cosmological quantities in other models to obtain some useful information about the model considered. We observed that the equation of state parameter, w, has decreasing behavior and it never crosses the phantom divide line (i.e., w = –1). Studying the statefinder pair {r, s} and {w, w′}, we observed that the model considered is able to obtain the ΛCDM phase of the Universe.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207