MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6957822161 · doi:10.60692/1r1zf-gyj53

Partition functions on slightly squashed spheres and flux parameters

2020· article· en· W6957822161 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuartic functionQuintic functionPartition function (quantum field theory)Term (time)Charge (physics)SPHERESRelation (database)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We argue that the conjectural relation between the subleading term in the small-squashing expansion of the free energy of general three-dimensional CFTs on squashed spheres and the stress-tensor three-point charge t4 proposed in arXiv:1808.02052: $$ {F}_{{\mathbbm{S}}_{\varepsilon}^3}^{(3)}(0)=\frac{1}{630}{\pi}^4{C}_T{t}_4 $$, holds for an infinite family of holographic higher-curvature theories. Using holographic calculations for quartic and quintic Generalized Quasi-topological gravities and general-order Quasi-topological gravities, we identify an analogous analytic relation between such term and the charges t2 and t4 valid for five-dimensional theories: $$ {F}_{{\mathbbm{S}}_{\varepsilon}^5}^{(3)}(0)=\frac{2}{15}{\pi}^6{C}_T\left[1+\frac{3}{40}{t}_2+\frac{23}{630}{t}_4\right] $$. We test both conjectures using new analytic and numerical results for conformally-coupled scalars and free fermions, finding perfect agreement.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.191
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information System→Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics→French-language works237,207→