First-order formulation of teleparallel gravity and dual loop gravity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There are at least two ways to encode gravity into geometry: Einstein’s general theory of relativity (GR) for the metric tensor, and teleparallel gravity, where torsion as opposed to curvature encodes the dynamics of the gravitational degrees of freedom. The main purpose of the paper is to explore the relation between loop gravity and teleparallel gravity. We argue that these two formulations of gravity are related to two different discretizations of the Einstein–Cartan action, which were studied recently in the literature. The first discretization leads to the loop gravity kinematical phase space where the zero torsion condition is enforced first and the other is the dual loop gravity kinematical phase space where curvature is imposed to vanish first. Our argument is based on the observation that the GR first-order Einstein–Cartan action can also be seen as a first-order action for teleparallel gravity up to a boundary term. The results of our paper suggest that the dual loop gravity framework is a natural discretization of teleparallel gravity, whereas loop gravity is naturally related to the standard GR metric description.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".