MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088136258 · doi:10.1142/s0217751x02011849

FINDING CONFORMAL KILLING VECTORS FROM THE INVARIANT CLASSIFICATION SCHEME

2002· article· en· W2088136258 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Edgar, Garry Ludwig

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Modern Physics A · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTetradHomothetic transformationKilling vector fieldConformal mapInvariant (physics)PhysicsMathematical physicsSpacetimeConformal symmetryPure mathematicsIsotropyMathematicsMathematical analysisQuantum mechanicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The invariant classification (Karlhede classification)1 of a particular spacetime fixes (up to isotropy) an intrinsic tetrad for the spacetime, in terms of the Riemann tensor and its derivatives. Exploiting this tetrad, it has been shown how to determine the number of Killing vectors which exist 2, and also whether a proper homothetic Killing vector exists 3. The first part of the talk outlined a procedure for finding explicitly homothetic and Killing vectors by exploiting the symmetry properties of the intrinsic tetrad 4,5. In general, it is not always possible to use this same tetrad to investigate proper conformal Killing vectors by the same methods. In this talk it was suggested to modify the invariant classification procedure so that only conformally invariant conditions are used for fixing the tetrad in terms of the Riemann tensor and its derivatives. This would mean that the existence of proper conformal Killing vectors could be deduced directly from the modified invariant classification scheme, and then found explicitly 6.

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)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Modern Physics ASame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207