MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2786637264 · doi:10.1142/s0217732318500748

Supersymmetry and the rotation group

2018· article· en· W2786637264 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Physics Letters A · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic and Geometric Analysis
Canadian institutionsAlgoma UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinkowski spaceSupersymmetryDegenerate energy levelsInvariant (physics)Euclidean geometryStereographic projectionRotation group SOProjection (relational algebra)Euclidean group

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A model invariant under a supersymmetric extension of the rotation group 0(3) is mapped, using a stereographic projection, from the spherical surface S 2 to two-dimensional Euclidean space. The resulting model is not translation invariant. This has the consequence that fields that are supersymmetric partners no longer have a degenerate mass. This degeneracy is restored once the radius of S 2 goes to infinity, and the resulting supersymmetry transformation for the fields is now mass dependent. An analogous model on the surface S 4 is introduced and its projection onto four-dimensional Euclidean space is examined. This model in turn suggests a supersymmetric model on (3 + 1)-dimensional Minkowski space.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Physics Letters ASame topicAlgebraic and Geometric AnalysisFrench-language works237,207