MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791502149 · doi:10.1142/s021773231850061x

Lorentz violation, gravitoelectromagnetism and Bhabha scattering at finite temperature

2018· article· en· W2791502149 on OpenAlexaff
A. F. Santos, F. C. Khanna

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Physics Letters A · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsLorentz transformationCovariant transformationBhabha scatteringFormalism (music)ElectromagnetismQuantum electrodynamicsLorentz covarianceScatteringMathematical physicsTheoretical physicsClassical mechanicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gravitoelectromagnetism (GEM) is an approach for the gravitation field that is described using the formulation and terminology similar to that of electromagnetism. The Lorentz violation is considered in the formulation of GEM that is covariant in its form. In practice, such a small violation of the Lorentz symmetry may be expected in a unified theory at very high energy. In this paper, a non-minimal coupling term, which exhibits Lorentz violation, is added as a new term in the covariant form. The differential cross-section for Bhabha scattering in the GEM framework at finite temperature is calculated that includes Lorentz violation. The Thermo Field Dynamics (TFD) formalism is used to calculate the total differential cross-section at finite temperature. The contribution due to Lorentz violation is isolated from the total cross-section. It is found to be small in magnitude.

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)0.001
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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Physics Letters ASame topicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity TheoriesFrench-language works237,207