MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766795742 · doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aa9804

Identification of black hole horizons using scalar curvature invariants

2017· article· en· W2766795742 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueClassical and Quantum Gravity · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsEvent horizonScalar curvatureCurvatureBlack hole (networking)Scalar (mathematics)HorizonApparent horizon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We introduce the concept of a geometric horizon, which is a surface distinguished by the vanishing of certain curvature invariants which characterize its special algebraic character. We motivate its use for the detection of the event horizon of a stationary black hole by providing a set of appropriate scalar polynomial curvature invariants that vanish on this surface. We extend this result by proving that a non-expanding horizon, which generalizes a Killing horizon, coincides with the geometric horizon. Finally, we consider the imploding spherically symmetric metrics and show that the geometric horizon identifies a unique quasi-local surface corresponding to the unique spherically symmetric marginally trapped tube, implying that the spherically symmetric dynamical black holes admit a geometric horizon. Based on these results, we propose a suite of conjectures concerning the application of geometric horizons to more general dynamical black hole scenarios.

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)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations33
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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