MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3100554467

How Not to Construct an Asymptotically de Sitter Universe

2002· article· en· W3100554467 on OpenAlexaff
A. J. M. Medved

Bibliographic record

VenueCERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsDe Sitter universeDe Sitter spaceTheoretical physicsUniversede Sitter invariant special relativityGravitational singularityAnti-de Sitter spaceSpacetimeCosmological constantde Sitter–Schwarzschild metricMathematical physicsClassical mechanicsQuantum mechanicsSchwarzschild radius
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Observational evidence suggests that our universe is currently evolving towards an asymptotically de Sitter future. Unfortunately and in spite of much recent attention, various quantum, holographic and cosmological aspects of de Sitter space remain quite enigmatic. With such intrigue in mind, this paper considers the ``construction'' of a toy model that describes an asymptotically de Sitter universe. More specifically, we add fluid-like matter to an otherwise purely de Sitter spacetime, formulate the relevant solutions and then discuss the cosmological and holographic implications. If the objective is to construct an asymptotically de Sitter universe that is free of singularities and has a straightforward holographic interpretation, then the results of this analysis are decidedly negative. Nonetheless, this toy model nicely illustrates the pitfalls that might be encountered in a more realistic type of construction.

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)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations10
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207