MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955717403 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.084044

Self-intersecting marginally outer trapped surfaces

2019· article· en· W2955717403 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel Pook-Kolb, O. Birnholtz, B. Krishnan, Erik Schnetter

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of TorontoCanada Foundation for InnovationGovernment of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGravitational waveNonlinear systemBinary numberPhysicsBlack hole (networking)Sequence (biology)Process (computing)Track (disk drive)MechanicsGravitational forceClassical mechanicsStatistical physicsComputer scienceAstrophysicsMathematicsChemistryComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have shown previously that a merger of marginally outer trapped surfaces (MOTSs) occurs in a binary black hole merger and that there is a continuous sequence of MOTSs which connects the initial two black holes to the final one. In this paper, we confirm this scenario numerically and we detail further improvements in the numerical methods for locating MOTSs. With these improvements, we confirm the merger scenario and demonstrate the existence of self-intersecting MOTSs formed in the immediate aftermath of the merger. These results will allow us to track physical quantities across the nonlinear merger process and to potentially infer properties of the merger from gravitational wave observations.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.443
Teacher spread0.428 · 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

Citations32
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207