MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945803379 · doi:10.4236/jmp.2019.106046

Calculation of the Universal Gravitational Constant, of the Hubble Constant, and of the Average CMB Temperature

2019· article· en· W2945803379 on OpenAlexaff
C. Mercier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Modern Physics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsCégep de Baie-Comeau
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsCosmic microwave backgroundHubble's lawCosmological constantGravitational constantPhysical constantMetric expansion of spaceDimensionless quantityAge of the universeConstant (computer programming)CosmologyGravitationDirac (video compression format)Mathematical physicsDark energyTheoretical physicsAstrophysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dirac made the hypothesis that all large, dimensionless numbers that could be constructed from the important natural units of cosmology and atomic theory were connected [1] [2]. Although Dirac did not succeed in exactly matching all these numbers, he suspected that there was a way to unify all of them. Dirac’s hypothesis leads to the N constant which unifies most of physics’ parameters. It represents the maximum number of photons with a wavelength equal to the universe circumference. Using a new cosmological model, we found the β constant which represents the ratio between the expansion speed of matter in the universe and the speed of light. With these constants, we can now calculate accurately several physics parameters, including the universal gravitational constant G, the Hubble constant H0, and the average temperature T of the cosmological microwave background (CMB). Our equations show that G, H0 and T are not really constant over space and time.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.215
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Modern PhysicsSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207