Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this chapter we embark on a general program to specialize the formulation of general relativity to a description of weak gravitational fields. We will go from the exact theory, which governs the behavior of arbitrarily strong fields, such as those of neutron stars and black holes, to a useful approximation that applies to weak fields, such as those of planets, main-sequence stars, and white dwarfs. This approximation will reproduce the predictions of Newtonian theory, but we will formulate a method that can be pushed systematically to higher and higher order to produce an increasingly accurate description of a weak gravitational field. We shall find that the method is so successful that it can actually handle fields that are not so weak. For example, it provides a perfectly adequate description of gravity at a safe distance from a neutron star, and it can be used as a foundation to study the motion of a binary black-hole system, provided that the mutual gravity between bodies is weak. The foundation for these methods is “post-Minkowskian theory,” the topic of this chapter and the next. In post-Minkowskian theory the strength of the gravitational field is measured by the gravitational constant G , and the Einstein field equations are formally expanded in powers of G . At zeroth post-Minkowskian order there is no field, and one deals with Minkowski spacetime.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".