MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2784270610 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.064041

Shadows, signals, and stability in Einsteinian cubic gravity

2018· article· en· W2784270610 on OpenAlexafffund
Robie A. Hennigar, Mohammad Bagher Jahani Poshteh, Robert B. Mann

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAnsatzPhysicsGeneral relativityBlack hole (networking)CurvatureTheory of relativityHorizonShadow (psychology)Theoretical physicsStability (learning theory)Classical mechanicsMathematical physicsGeometryMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We conduct a preliminary investigation into the phenomenological implications of Einsteinian cubic gravity (ECG), a four-dimensional theory of gravity cubic in curvature of interest for its unique formulation and properties. We find an analytic approximation for a spherically symmetric black hole solution to this theory using a continued fraction ansatz. This approximate solution is valid everywhere outside of the horizon and we use it to study the orbit of massive test bodies near a black hole, specifically computing the innermost stable circular orbit. We compute constraints on the ECG coupling parameter imposed by Shapiro time delay. We then compute the shadow of an ECG black hole and find it to be larger than its Einsteinian counterpart in general relativity for the same value of the mass. Applying our results to Sgr A*, we find that departures from general relativity are small but in principle distinguishable.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.366 · 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

Citations111
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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