MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593535215 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.104042

Generalized quasitopological gravity

2017· article· en· W2593535215 on OpenAlexafffund
Robie A. Hennigar, David Kubizňák, Robert B. Mann

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsSchwarzschild metricf(R) gravityHigher-dimensional Einstein gravityEinsteinCurvatureMathematical physicsHořava–Lifshitz gravitySchwarzschild radiusGravitationMetric (unit)Theoretical physicsClassical mechanicsQuantum gravityGeneral relativityMathematicsQuantum mechanicsGeometryNumerical relativity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We construct the most general, to cubic order in curvature, theory of gravity whose (most general) static spherically symmetric vacuum solutions are fully described by a single field equation. The theory possesses the following remarkable properties: (i) It has a well-defined Einstein gravity limit, (ii) it admits ``Schwarzschild-like'' solutions characterized by a single metric function, (iii) on maximally symmetric backgrounds it propagates the same degrees of freedom as Einstein's gravity, and (iv) Lovelock and quasitopological gravities, as well as the recently developed Einsteinian cubic gravity [Bueno and Cano Phys. Rev. D 94, 104005 (2016).] in four dimensions, are recovered as special cases. We perform a brief analysis of asymptotically flat black holes in this theory and study their thermodynamics.

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)0.000
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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.410 · 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

Citations114
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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