MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996938564 · doi:10.1088/0264-9381/31/8/082001

Looking inside a black hole

2014· article· en· W1996938564 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexander R. H. Smith, Robert B. Mann

Bibliographic record

VenueClassical and Quantum Gravity · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Electrodynamics and Casimir Effect
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsEvent horizonCosmic censorship hypothesisBlack hole (networking)Gravitational singularityMembrane paradigmApparent horizonUnruh effectObserver (physics)HorizonNaked singularityTheoretical physicsRing singularityNonsingular black hole modelsGravitational collapseConjectureMathematical physicsCharged black holeClassical mechanicsQuantum mechanicsQuantumExtremal black holeAstronomyPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cosmic censorship conjecture posits that singularities forming to the future of a regular Cauchy surface are hidden by an event horizon. Consequently any topological structures will ultimately collapse within the horizon of a set of black holes and so no observer can actively probe them classically. We consider here a quantum analog of this problem, in which we compare the transition rates of an Unruh-DeWitt detector placed outside the horizon of an eternal BTZ black hole and its associated geon counterpart. We find the transition rates differ, with the latter being time-dependent, implying that we are indeed able to probe the structure of the singularity from outside the Killing horizon.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

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 studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations29
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClassical and Quantum GravitySame topicQuantum Electrodynamics and Casimir EffectFrench-language works237,207