MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3020014845 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.084001

Slowly rotating black holes in Einsteinian cubic gravity

2020· article· en· W3020014845 on OpenAlexafffund
Connor Adair, Pablo Bueno, Pablo A. Cano, Robie A. Hennigar, Robert B. Mann

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of Waterloo
FundersBijzonder Onderzoeksfonds UGentNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaKU LeuvenSimons Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsBlack hole (networking)GeologyClassical mechanicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We construct slowly rotating black-hole solutions of Einsteinian cubic gravity (ECG) in four dimensions with flat and anti--de Sitter asymptotes. At leading order in the rotation parameter, the only modification with respect to the static case is the appearance of a nonvanishing ${g}_{t\ensuremath{\phi}}$ component. Similar to the static case, the order of the equation determining this component can be reduced twice, giving rise to a second-order differential equation, which can be easily solved numerically as a function of ECG coupling. We study how various physical properties of the solutions are modified with respect to the Einstein gravity, including its angular velocity, photon sphere, photon rings, shadow, and innermost stable circular orbits (in the case of timelike geodesics).

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.363 · 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

Citations51
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207