MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098661032 · doi:10.2478/s11534-012-0043-x

The Carter constant for inclined orbits about a massive Kerr black hole: near-circular, near-polar orbits

2012· article· en· W2098661032 on OpenAlexafffund
P.G. Komorowski, Sree Ram Valluri, Martin Houde

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Innovation Trust
KeywordsCircular orbitPhysicsPolarConstant (computer programming)Black hole (networking)AstronomyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In an extreme mass-ratio binary black hole system, a non-equatorial orbit will list (i.e. increase its angle of inclination, i) as it evolves in Kerr spacetime. The abutment, a set of evolving, near-polar, retrograde orbits, for which the instantaneous Carter constant (Q) is at its maximum value (Q X) for given values of latus rectum (l̃) and eccentricity (e), has been introduced as a laboratory in which the consistency of dQ/dt with corresponding evolution equations for d l̃/dt and de/dt might be tested independently of a specific radiation back-reaction model. To demonstrate the use of the abutment as such a laboratory, a derivation of dQ/dt, based only on published formulae for d l̃/dt and de/dt, was performed for elliptical orbits on the abutment. The resulting expression for dQ/dt matched the published result to the second order in e. We believe the abutment is a potentially useful tool for improving the accuracy of evolution equations to higher orders of e and l̃−.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen PhysicsSame topicAstrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsFrench-language works237,207