MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020958444 · doi:10.1088/0264-9381/18/17/202

Numerical relativity: a review

2001· review· en· W2020958444 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClassical and Quantum Gravity · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsPacific Institute for the Mathematical SciencesUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsNumerical relativityGeneral relativityTheoretical physicsTheory of relativityField (mathematics)Quantum gravityClassical mechanicsStatistical physicsQuantumQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computer simulations are enabling researchers to investigate systems which are extremely difficult to handle analytically. In the particular case of General Relativity, numerical models have proved extremely valuable for investigations of strong field scenarios and been crucial to reveal unexpected phenomena. Considerable efforts are being spent to simulate astrophysically relevant simulations, understand different aspects of the theory and provide insights in the search for a quantum theory of gravity. In the present article I review the present status of the field of Numerical Relativity, describe the techniques most commonly used and discuss (some) future prospects.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.352 · 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