MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281550955 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.046009

Group field theory on 2-groups

2023· article· en· W4281550955 on OpenAlexaff
Florian Girelli, Matteo Laudonio, Adrian Tanasă, Panagiotis Tsimiklis

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsTopological quantum field theoryPhysicsGroup (periodic table)Quantum field theoryFeynman diagramGroup field theoryField theory (psychology)Field (mathematics)Theoretical physicsSymmetry groupQuantum gravityGroup theoryTopology (electrical circuits)Symmetry (geometry)Quantum mechanicsQuantumMathematical physicsThermal quantum field theoryPure mathematicsMathematicsGeometryCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Group field theories are quantum field theories built on groups. They can be seen as a tool to generate topological state-sums or quantum gravity models. For four dimensional manifolds, different arguments have pointed toward 2-groups (such as crossed modules) as the relevant symmetry structure to probe four dimensional topological features. Here, we introduce a group field theory built on crossed modules which generate a four dimensional topological model, as we prove that the Feynman diagram amplitudes can be related by Pachner moves. This model is presumably the dual version of the Yetter-Mackaay model.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.431
Teacher spread0.412 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity TheoriesFrench-language works237,207