MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4380989045 · doi:10.1007/jhep06(2023)088

To Half-Be or Not To Be?

2023· article· en· W4380989045 on OpenAlexaff
Claudia de Rham, Sebastián García-Sáenz, Lavinia Heisenberg, Victor Pozsgay, Xinmiao Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungImperial College LondonNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsLorentz covarianceLorentz transformationParity (physics)Degrees of freedom (physics and chemistry)SpacetimeMathematical proofHamiltonian (control theory)Theoretical physicsInvariant (physics)LagrangianClassical mechanicsOne-way speed of lightMathematical physicsQuantum mechanicsTheory of relativityMathematicsTest theories of special relativityGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It has recently been argued that half degrees of freedom could emerge in Lorentz and parity invariant field theories, using a non-linear Proca field theory dubbed Proca-Nuevo as a specific example. We provide two proofs, using the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian pictures, that the theory possesses a pair of second class constraints, leaving D − 1 degrees of freedom in D spacetime dimensions, as befits a consistent Proca model. Our proofs are explicit and straightforward in two dimensions and we discuss how they generalize to an arbitrary number of dimensions. We also clarify why local Lorentz and parity invariant field theories cannot hold half degrees of freedom.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.010
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.003

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy Physics→Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics→French-language works237,207→