MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070830358 · doi:10.1119/1.4850396

The Schwarzschild metric: It's the coordinates, stupid!

2014· article· en· W2070830358 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre Fromholz, Eric Poisson, Clifford M. Will

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDeriving the Schwarzschild solutionSchwarzschild radiusSchwarzschild metricPhysicsKerr metricSchwarzschild geodesicsGeneral relativityClassical mechanicsEinsteinTheoretical physicsCoordinate timeSpacetimeMathematical physicsGravitationQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Every general relativity textbook emphasizes that coordinates have no physical meaning. Nevertheless, a coordinate choice must be made in order to carry out real calculations, and that choice can make the difference between a calculation that is simple and one that is a mess. We give a concrete illustration of the maxim that “coordinates matter” using the exact Schwarzschild solution for a vacuum, static spherical spacetime. We review the standard textbook derivation, Schwarzschild's original 1916 derivation, and a derivation using the Landau-Lifshitz formulation of the Einstein field equations. The last derivation is much more complicated, has one aspect for which we have been unable to find a solution, and gives an explicit illustration of the fact that the Schwarzschild geometry can be described in infinitely many coordinate systems.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations36
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of PhysicsSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207