MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2951301710 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.0811.1993

Magnetic Fields from Heterotic Cosmic Strings

2008· preprint· en· W2951301710 on OpenAlexaff
Rhiannon Gwyn, Stephon Alexander, Robert Brandenberger, Keshav Dasgupta

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2008
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsHeterotic string theoryCosmic stringAstrophysicsDynamoMagnetic fieldGalaxyCOSMIC cancer databaseSpiral galaxyCosmic rayScalingTheoretical physicsAstronomyString (physics)Quantum mechanicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large-scale magnetic fields are observed today to be coherent on galactic scales. While there exists an explanation for their amplification and their specific configuration in spiral galaxies -- the dynamo mechanism -- a satisfying explanation for the original seed fields required is still lacking. Cosmic strings are compelling candidates because of their scaling properties, which would guarantee the coherence on cosmological scales of any resultant magnetic fields at the time of galaxy formation. We present a mechanism for the production of primordial seed magnetic fields from heterotic cosmic strings arising from M theory. More specifically, we make use of heterotic cosmic strings stemming from M5--branes wrapped around four of the compact internal dimensions. These objects are stable on cosmological time scales and carry charged zero modes. Therefore a scaling solution of such defects will generate seed magnetic fields which are coherent on galactic scales today.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.org→Same topicCosmology and Gravitation Theories→French-language works237,207→