MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000097844 · doi:10.1142/s0218271808014084

THE FLUID–GRAVITY CORRESPONDENCE: THE MEMBRANE AT THE END OF THE UNIVERSE

2008· article· en· W2000097844 on OpenAlexaff
Veronika E. Hubeny, Mukund Rangamani, Shiraz Minwalla, Mark Van Raamsdonk

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Modern Physics D · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsConnection (principal bundle)GravitationBlack hole (networking)Event horizonBraneClassical mechanicsMembrane paradigmUniverseMassive gravityConformal mapBrane cosmologySpacetimeSpace (punctuation)Theoretical physicsBlack braneGravitational collapseBoundary (topology)HorizonExtremal black holeSchwarzschild radiusGeometryAstrophysicsMathematical analysisQuantum mechanicsCharged black hole

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We establish an explicit connection between the evolution of generic inhomogeneous black brane solutions in asymptotically AdS space–times and the evolution of relativistic conformal fluids in one lower dimension. Specifically, given any solution to a particular set of fluid-dynamical equations, one can construct an inhomogeneous black brane solution with a regular event horizon. This connection is reminiscent of the membrane paradigm for black holes; in our case the dynamics of the entire space–time is encoded in a fluid living at the boundary. This fluid–gravity correspondence leads to interesting implications for both gravitational physics and fluid dynamics.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Modern Physics DSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207