MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Black hole thermodynamics in MOdified Gravity (MOG)

2016· article· en· W1547121931 on OpenAlexafffund
Jonas Mureika, J. W. Moffat, Mir Faizal

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Letters B · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueIndustry CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsBlack hole (networking)Black hole thermodynamicsGravitationDark matterThermodynamicsClassical mechanicsAstrophysicsEntropy (arrow of time)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We analyze the thermodynamical properties of black holes in a modified theory of gravity, which was initially proposed to obtain correct dynamics of galaxies and galaxy clusters without dark matter . The thermodynamics of non-rotating and rotating black hole solutions resembles similar solutions in Einstein–Maxwell theory with the electric charge being replaced by a new mass dependent gravitational charge Q = α G N M . This new mass dependent charge modifies the effective Newtonian constant from G N to G = G N ( 1 + α ) , and this in turn critically affects the thermodynamics of the black holes. We also investigate the thermodynamics of regular solutions, and explore the limiting case when no horizons forms. So, it is possible that the modified gravity can lead to the absence of black hole horizons in our universe. Finally, we analyze corrections to the thermodynamics of a non-rotating black hole and obtain the usual logarithmic correction term.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations104
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics Letters BSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207