MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890098009 · doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aaf9ca

Tabletop experiments for quantum gravity: a user’s manual

2018· article· en· W2890098009 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClassical and Quantum Gravity · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Electrodynamics and Casimir Effect
Canadian institutionsPacific Institute for the Mathematical SciencesUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantumVariety (cybernetics)Quantum gravityGeneral relativityOpen quantum systemField (mathematics)Quantum field theoryQuantization (signal processing)Quantum technology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent advances in cooling, control, and measurement of mechanical systems in the quantum regime have opened the possibility of the first direct observation of quantum gravity, at scales achievable in experiments. This paper gives a broad overview of this idea, using some matter-wave and optomechanical systems to illustrate the predictions of a variety of models of low-energy quantum gravity. We first review the treatment of perturbatively quantized general relativity as an effective quantum field theory, and consider the particular challenges of observing quantum effects in this framework. We then move on to a variety of alternative models, such as those in which gravity is classical, emergent, or responsible for a breakdown of quantum mechanics.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.282 · 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