MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7034810575

What can cosmology tell us about gravity? Constraining Horndeski gravity with Sigma and mu

2017· article· en· W7034810575 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLeiden Repository (Leiden University) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Education and Assessments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsSigmaCosmologyCosmological modelSet (abstract data type)Gravitation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phenomenological functions Σ and μ (also known as G light =G and G matter =G) are commonly used to parametrize possible modifications of the Poisson equation relating the matter density contrast to the lensing and the Newtonian potentials, respectively.They will be well constrained by future surveys of large-scale structure.But what would the implications of measuring particular values of these functions be for modified gravity theories?We ask this question in the context of the general Horndeski class of singlefield scalar-tensor theories with second-order equations of motion.We find several consistency conditions that make it possible to rule out broad classes of theories based on measurements of Σ and μ that are independent of their parametric forms.For instance, a measurement of Σ ≠ 1 would rule out all models with a canonical form of kinetic energy, while finding Σ -1 and μ -1 to be of opposite sign would strongly disfavor the entire class of Horndeski models.We separately examine the large-and the smallscale limits, the possibility of scale dependence, and the consistency with bounds on the speed of gravitational waves.We identify subclasses of Horndeski theories that can be ruled out based on the measured difference between Σ and μ.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.270 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueLeiden Repository (Leiden University)Same topicTeacher Education and AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207