MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106455609 · doi:10.1088/0264-9381/23/2/009

Marginally trapped tubes and dynamical horizons

2005· article· en· W2106455609 on OpenAlexaff
Ivan Booth, Lionel Brits, José A. González, Chris Van Den Broeck

Bibliographic record

VenueClassical and Quantum Gravity · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsScalar fieldHorizonEvent horizonScalar (mathematics)Mathematical physicsBlack hole (networking)Null (SQL)Classical mechanicsQuantum electrodynamicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate the generic behaviour of marginally trapped tubes (roughly time-evolved apparent horizons) using simple, spherically symmetric examples of dust and scalar field collapse/accretion onto pre-existing black holes. We find that given appropriate physical conditions the evolution of the marginally trapped tube may be either null, timelike, or spacelike and further that the marginally trapped two-sphere cross-sections may either expand or contract in area. Spacelike expansions occur when the matter falling into a black hole satisfies ρ − P ⩽ 1/ A , where A is the area of the horizon while ρ and P are respectively the density and pressure of the matter. Timelike evolutions occur when (ρ − P ) is greater than this cut-off and so would be expected to be more common for large black holes. Physically they correspond to horizon 'jumps' as extreme conditions force the formation of new horizons outside the old.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations131
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClassical and Quantum GravitySame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207