Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".