MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2962733910 · doi:10.1007/jhep11(2019)043

Hairy black hole chemistry

2019· article· en· W2962733910 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsScalar fieldBlack hole (networking)Cosmological constantIsoperimetric inequalityBlack hole thermodynamicsBTZ black holeContext (archaeology)String theoryCanonical ensembleBoundary value problem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We study the thermodynamics of an exact hairy black hole solution in Anti- deSitter (AdS) spacetime. We use the counterterm method supplemented with boundary terms for the scalar field to obtain the thermodynamic quantities and stress tensor of the dual field theory. We then extend our analysis by considering a dynamical cosmological constant and verify the isoperimetric inequality. Unlike the thermodynamics of Reissner- Nordström (RN) black hole in this ‘extended’ framework, the presence of the scalar field and its self-interaction makes also the criticality possible in the grand canonical ensemble. In the canonical ensemble, we prove that, in fact, there exist two critical points. Finally we comment on a different possible interpretation that is more natural in the context of string theory.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

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 communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 venueJournal of High Energy Physics→Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics→French-language works237,207→