MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Cosmic Censorship Upheld in Spheroidal Collapse of Collisionless Matter

2019· article· en· W2909976352 on OpenAlexafffund
William E. East

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueOntario Ministry of Economic Development and InnovationGovernment of Canada
KeywordsCosmic censorship hypothesisPhysicsGravitational collapseClassical mechanicsCensorshipTheoretical physicsQuantum mechanicsQuantum electrodynamicsLawGeneral relativityPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the collapse of spheroidal configurations of collisionless particles in full general relativity. This setup was originally considered by Shapiro and Teukolsky, where it was found that prolate configurations with a sufficiently large semimajor axis gave rise to diverging curvature, but no apparent horizon. This was taken as evidence for the formation of a naked singularity, in violation of cosmic censorship. We revisit such configurations using different coordinates and slicing, and considering a range of values for the semimajor axis and eccentricity of the initial matter distribution, and find that the final state in all cases studied is a black hole plus gravitational radiation. Though initially distorted, the proper circumferences of the apparent horizons that are found do not significantly exceed the hoop conjecture bound. Configurations with a larger semimajor axis can produce strong gravitational radiation, with luminosities up to P_{GW}∼2×10^{-3}c^{5}/G.

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)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations24
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review Letters→Same topicCosmology and Gravitation Theories→French-language works237,207→