MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897678172 · doi:10.3390/universe4100109

Embedding Black Holes and Other Inhomogeneities in the Universe in Various Theories of Gravity: A Short Review

2018· review· en· W2897678172 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueUniverse · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsBishop's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsEvent horizonBlack hole (networking)Hawking radiationBlack hole thermodynamicsTheoretical physicsCosmological constantMicro black holePhenomenology (philosophy)FuzzballCosmologyHorizonClassical mechanicsGravitationQuantum mechanicsCharged black holeAstronomySchwarzschild radius

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Classic black hole mechanics and thermodynamics are formulated for stationary black holes with event horizons. Alternative theories of gravity of interest for cosmology contain a built-in time-dependent cosmological “constant” and black holes are not stationary. Realistic black holes are anyway dynamical because they interact with astrophysical environments or, at a more fundamental level, because of backreaction by Hawking radiation. In these situations, the teleological concept of event horizon fails and apparent or trapping horizons are used instead. Even as toy models, black holes embedded in cosmological “backgrounds” and other inhomogeneous universes constitute an interesting class of solutions of various theories of gravity. We discuss the known phenomenology of apparent and trapping horizons in these geometries, focusing on spherically symmetric inhomogeneous universes.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.700

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.286 · 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