MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943996148 · doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ab3d4d

Misner gravitational charges and variable string strengths

2019· article· en· W2943996148 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueClassical and Quantum Gravity · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsString (physics)Euclidean geometryCharge (physics)Interpretation (philosophy)GravitationAction (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As shown recently Hennigar et al (2019 (arXiv:1903.0866)), consistent thermodynamics of the Lorentzian Taub–NUT solutions with Misner strings present can be formulated provided a new pair of conjugate quantities (related to the NUT parameter) is introduced. In Hennigar et al (2019 (arXiv:1903.0866)) this pair was calculated from the Euclidean action but no geometrical interpretation for the new quantities was provided. In this paper we propose that the potential should be identified with the surface gravity of the Misner string and the conjugate Misner charge N can be obtained by a Komar-type integration over the tubes surrounding the string singularities. We show that similar tube contributions also modify the Komar formula for the thermodynamic volume. To render the integrals finite we employ the method of Killing co-potentials. By construction the new charges then satisfy the Smarr relation. Equipped with these geometrical notions, we generalize the first law for the (possibly charged) Taub–NUT spacetimes to account for asymmetric distributions of Misner strings and their potential variable strengths.

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)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations55
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClassical and Quantum GravitySame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207