MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2473045750 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.024028

Critical behavior of charged black holes in Gauss-Bonnet gravity’s rainbow

2016· article· en· W2473045750 on OpenAlexaff
S. H. Hendi, S. Panahiyan, B. Eslam Panah, Mir Faizal, Mehrab Momennia

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersResearch Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics of Maragha
KeywordsRainbowPhysicsGeneralizationvan der Waals forceThermodynamicsPhase spaceGauss–Bonnet theoremSpace (punctuation)Gauss–Bonnet gravityClassical mechanicsMathematical physicsGravitationQuantum mechanicsMathematical analysisMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following an earlier study regarding Gauss-Bonnet-Maxwell black holes in the presence of gravity's rainbow [S. H. Hendi and M. Faizal, Phys. Rev. D 92, 044027 (2015)], in this paper, we consider all constants as energy dependent ones. The geometrical and thermodynamical properties of this generalization is studied and the validation of the first law of thermodynamics is examined. Next, through the use of proportionality between the cosmological constant and the thermodynamical pressure, van der Waals--like behavior of these black holes in extended phase space is investigated. An interesting critical behavior for sets of rainbow functions in this case is reported. Also, the critical behavior of uncharged and charged solutions is analyzed and it is shown that the generalization to a charged case puts an energy dependent restriction on values of different parameters.

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)0.002
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.390 · 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

Citations90
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207