MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996909210 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.063522

Nonsingular ekpyrotic cosmology with a nearly scale-invariant spectrum of cosmological perturbations and gravitational waves

2020· article· en· W2996909210 on OpenAlexafffund
Robert Brandenberger, Ziwei Wang

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMcGill Space InstituteNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsMcGill University
KeywordsEkpyrotic universePhysicsGravitational waveCosmologyCosmic stringClassical mechanicsScale invarianceString theoryScalar (mathematics)GravitationAmplitudeTheoretical physicsString (physics)Quantum mechanicsMetric expansion of spaceDark energyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a mechanism borrowed from string theory which yields a nonsingular transition from a phase of ekpyrotic contraction to the expanding phase of standard big bang cosmology. The same mechanism converts the initial vacuum spectrum of cosmological fluctuations before the bounce into a scale-invariant one, and also changes the spectrum of gravitational waves into an almost scale-invariant one. The scalar and tensor tilts are predicted to be the same, in contrast to the predictions from the ``string gas cosmology'' scenario. The amplitude of the gravitational wave spectrum depends on the ratio of the string scale to the Planck scale and may be in reach of upcoming experiments.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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 studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.340 · 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

Citations44
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207