MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2894525197 · doi:10.1093/ptep/pty136

“Flux-balance formulae” for extreme mass-ratio inspirals

2018· article· en· W2894525197 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueProgress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceMinistério da EducaçãoMinisterio de Economía y CompetitividadMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
KeywordsHamiltonian (control theory)GeodesicRadiative transferFlux (metallurgy)Angular momentum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The “flux-balance formulae” that determine the averaged evolution of energy, azimuthal angular momentum, and Carter constant in terms of the averaged asymptotic gravitational-wave fluxes for inspirals of small bodies into Kerr black holes were first derived about 15 years ago. However, this derivation is restricted to the case that the background Kerr geodesics are non-resonant (i.e., the radial and angular motions are always incommensurate), and excludes the resonant case that can be important for the radiative dynamics of extreme mass-ratio inspirals. We give here a new derivation of the flux formulae based on Hamiltonian dynamics of a self-forced particle motion, which is a valuable tool for analyzing self-force effects on generic (eccentric, inclined) bound orbits in the Kerr spacetime. This Hamiltonian derivation using action-angle variables is much simpler than the previous one, applies to resonant inspirals without any complication, and can be straightforwardly implemented by using analytical/numerical Teukolsky-based flux codes.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.353
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Citations37
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProgress of Theoretical and Experimental PhysicsSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207