MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050318118 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.87.081506

Neutron-star mergers in scalar-tensor theories of gravity

2013· article· en· W2050318118 on OpenAlexaff
Enrico Barausse, Carlos Palenzuela, Marcelo Ponce, Luis Lehner

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsNeutron starPhysicsGeneral relativityGravitational waveLIGOBinary pulsarGravitonScalar (mathematics)Theoretical physicsGravitationPulsarAstrophysicsAstronomyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scalar-tensor theories of gravity are natural phenomenological alternatives to General Relativity, where the gravitational interaction is mediated by a scalar degree of freedom, besides the usual tensor gravitons. In regions of the parameter space of these theories where constraints from both solar system experiments and binary-pulsar observations are satisfied, we show that binaries of neutron stars present marked differences from General Relativity in both the late-inspiral and merger phases. In particular, phenomena related to the spontaneous scalarization of isolated neutron stars take place in the late stages of the evolution of binary systems, with important effects in the ensuing dynamics. We comment on the relevance of our results for the upcoming Advanced LIGO/Virgo detectors.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.327 · 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

Citations258
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmologySame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207