MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3100377051

Cosmological Backreaction for a Test Field Observer in a Chaotic Inflationary Model

2016· article· en· W3100377051 on OpenAlexaff
Giovanni Marozzi, Gian Paolo Vacca

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsObserver (physics)ChaoticCosmological perturbation theoryIsotropyInvariant (physics)UniverseTheoretical physicsMetric expansion of spacePerturbation (astronomy)Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metricStatistical physicsContext (archaeology)Classical mechanicsInflation (cosmology)Mathematical physicsQuantum mechanicsCosmologyDark energy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an inhomogeneous universe, an observer associated with a particular matter field does not necessarily measure the same cosmological evolution as an observer in a homogeneous and isotropic universe. Here we consider, in the context of a chaotic inflationary background model, a class of observers associated with a “clock field ” for which we use a light test field. We compute the effective expansion rate and fluid equation of state in a gauge invariant way, taking into account the quantum fluctuations of the long wavelength modes, and working up to second order in perturbation theory and in the slow-roll approximation. We find that the effective expansion rate is smaller than what would be measured in the absence of fluctuations. Within the stochastic approach we study the bounds for which the approximations we make are consistent. 1

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations32
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207