MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306177122 · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/10/045

Observational constraints on anisotropies for bouncing alternatives to inflation

2022· article· en· W4306177122 on OpenAlexaff
Iván Agulló, Javier Olmedo, Edward Wilson-Ewing

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsCosmic microwave backgroundInflation (cosmology)AnisotropyQuadrupoleInstabilityCosmological perturbation theoryScalingUniverseParameter spaceScale invarianceScalar (mathematics)Cosmic background radiationClassical mechanicsTheoretical physicsAstrophysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We calculate how primordial anisotropies in the background space-time affect the evolution of cosmological perturbations for bouncing alternatives to inflation, like ekpyrosis and the matter bounce scenario. We find that the leading order effect of anisotropies in the contracting phase of the universe is to induce anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background with a very concrete form: a scale-invariant quadrupolar angular distribution. Sub-leading effects are the generation of higher-order moments in the angular distribution, as well as cross-correlations between scalar and tensor modes. We also find that observational constraints from the cosmic microwave background on the quadrupole moment provide strong bounds on allowed anisotropies for bouncing alternatives to inflation that are significantly more constraining than the bounds previously obtained using scaling arguments based on the conjectured Belinski-Khalatnikov-Lifshitz instability.

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)0.008
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle PhysicsSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207