MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005687419 · doi:10.1139/p08-033

Teleparallel version of the Levi–Civita vacuum solutions and their energy contents

2008· article· en· W2005687419 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. Sharif, M. Jamil Amir

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsTetradTensor (intrinsic definition)Torsion (gastropod)Mathematical physicsGeneral relativityMetric tensorCoupling constantEinsteinEnergy–momentum relationDiagonalClassical mechanicsQuantum mechanicsMathematical analysisGeodesicGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we find the teleparallel version of the Levi–Civita metric and obtain tetrad and the torsion fields. The tensor, vector, and the axial-vector parts of the torsion tensor are evaluated. It is found that the vector part lies along the radial direction only while the axial-vector vanishes everywhere because the metric is diagonal. Further, we use the teleparallel version of Moller, Einstein, Landau–Lifshitz, and Bergmann–Thomson prescriptions to find the energy-momentum distribution of this metric and compare the results with those already found in General Relativity (GR). It is worth mentioning here that momentum is constant in both of the theories for all the prescriptions. The energy in teleparallel theory is equal to the corresponding energy in GR only in the Moller prescription for the remaining prescriptions, the energy does not agree in both theories. We also conclude that Moller's energy-momentum distribution is independent of the coupling constant λ in the teleparallel theory.PACS Nos.: 04.20.–q, 04.20.Cv

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.184
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

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207