MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385879903 · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/08/038

New MGCAMB tests of gravity with CosmoMC and Cobaya

2023· article· en· W4385879903 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhuangfei Wang, Seyed Hamidreza Mirpoorian, Levon Pogosian, Alessandra Silvestri, Gong‐Bo Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPhysicsDark energyDark matterRedshiftSolverAstrophysicsCosmologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present a new version of MGCAMB, a patch for the Einstein-Boltzmann solver CAMB for cosmological tests of gravity. New features include a new cubic-spline parameterization allowing for a simultaneous reconstruction of μ , Σ and the dark energy density fraction Ω X as functions of redshift, the option to work with a direct implementation of μ , Σ (instead of converting to μ , γ first), along with the option to test models with a scalar field coupled only to dark matter, and the option to include dark energy perturbations when working with w ≠ -1 backgrounds, to restore consistency with CAMB in the GR limit. This version of MGCAMB comes with a Python wrapper to run it directly from the Python interface, an implementation in the latest version of CosmoMC, and can be used with Cobaya.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.005

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations28
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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