MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021309061 · doi:10.1063/1.1814417

Conformal Killing horizons

2004· article· en· W2021309061 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph Sultana, C. C. Dyer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mathematical Physics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEvent horizonKilling vector fieldConformal symmetryBoundary conformal field theoryConformal mapPhysicsConformal field theoryGeodesicHorizonHypersurfaceMathematical physicsBlack hole (networking)Classical mechanicsMathematicsMathematical analysisBoundary value problemGeometryQuantum mechanicsFree boundary problemRobin boundary condition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For time dependent black hole space–times the event horizon cannot be described by a Killing horizon. In the case when the space–time admits a timelike conformal Killing field, which becomes null on a boundary called the conformal stationary limit surface, one can locally describe the expanding event horizon by using this boundary, provided that it is a null geodesic hypersurface. In this case the boundary is called a conformal Killing horizon and is shown to be null and geodesic if and only if the twist of the conformal Killing trajectories on the hypersurface vanishes. Moreover if the space–time is conformally related to a stationary asymptotically flat black hole space–time, it is shown that this hypersurface is globally equivalent to the event horizon, provided that the conformal factor goes to a constant at null infinity. When the conformal stationary limit surface does not coincide with the conformal Killing horizon, a generalization of the weak rigidity theorem which establishes the conformal Killing property of the event horizon and the rigidity of its rotation is obtained. A physical definition of surface gravity for conformal Killing horizons is given, which is then used to formulate a generalized zeroth law of black hole physics.

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 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 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations35
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mathematical PhysicsSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207