MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782761803 · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/07/022

Singularities in spherically symmetric solutions with limited curvature invariants

2018· article· en· W2782761803 on OpenAlexaff
Daisuke Yoshida, Robert Brandenberger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSingularityPhysicsGravitational singularityNaked singularityInitial singularityRing singularitySchwarzschild radiusCurvatureRiemann curvature tensorEssential singularityEvent horizonIsolated singularityMathematical physicsClassical mechanicsRicci curvatureScalar curvatureSingularity theoryGravitationSpacetimeMathematical analysisUniverseQuantum mechanicsGeometryMathematicsDe Sitter universeCharged black hole

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate static, spherically symmetric solutions in gravitational theories which have limited curvature invariants, aiming to remove the singularity in the Schwarzschild space-time. We find that if we only limit the Gauss-Bonnet term and the Ricci scalar, then the singularity at the origin persists. Moreover we find that the position corresponding to the event horizon in the original Schwarzschild space-time can develop a curvature singularity, which we call thunderbolt singularity. We also investigate a new class of theories in which all components of the Riemann tensor are bounded. We find that the thunderbolt singularity is avoidable in this theory. However, other kinds of singularities due to the dynamics of additional degrees of freedom cannot be removed, and the space-time remains singular.

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
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations16
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle PhysicsSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207