MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991645385 · doi:10.1119/10.0000026

Equilibrium and stability of thin spherical shells in Newtonian and relativistic gravity

2019· article· en· W2991645385 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNewtonian fluidGeneral relativityStability (learning theory)SimplicityPerfect fluidGravitationTheory of relativityNewtonian potentialSequence (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider thin spherical shells of matter in both Newtonian gravity and general relativity and examine their equilibrium configurations and dynamical stability. Thin-shell models are admittedly a poor substitute for realistic stellar models. But the simplicity of the equations that govern their dynamics, compared to the much more complicated mechanics of a self-gravitating fluid, allows us to deliver, in a very direct and easy manner, powerful insights into their equilibria and stability. We explore, in particular, the link between the existence of a maximum mass along a sequence of equilibrium configurations and the onset of dynamical instability. Such a link is well-established in the case of fluid bodies in both Newtonian gravity and general relativity, but the demonstration of this link is both subtle and difficult. The proof is very simple, however, in the case of thin shells, and it is constructed with nothing more than straightforward algebra and a little calculus.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of PhysicsSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207