MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4226154602 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3267

Observational constraints on varying fundamental constants in a minimal CPC model

2022· article· en· W4226154602 on OpenAlexaff
R. R. Cuzinatto, R. F. L. Holanda, S. H. Pereira

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsPhysicsMetric (unit)Constant (computer programming)Mathematical physicsField (mathematics)Tensor (intrinsic definition)Manifold (fluid mechanics)EinsteinClassical mechanicsTheoretical physicsPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT A minimal model based on the Co-varying Physical Couplings (CPC) framework for gravity is proposed. The CPC framework is based on the assumptions of a metric-compatible four-dimensional Riemannian manifold, where a covariantly conserved stress-energy tensor acts as source of the field equations, which are formally the same as Einstein field equations, but where the couplings {G, c, Λ} are allowed to vary simultaneously. The minimal CPC model takes Λ as a genuine constant while c and G vary in an entangled way that is consistent with Bianchi identity and the aforementioned assumptions. The model is constrained using the most recent galaxy cluster gas mass fraction observational data. Our result indicates that the functions c(z) and G (z) = G0 (c/c0)4 are compatible with constant couplings for the two different parametrizations of c = c(z) adopted here.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.244
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society→Same topicCosmology and Gravitation Theories→French-language works237,207→