MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3023512674 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.095020

Quantum black holes in the horizon quantum mechanics model at the Large Hadron Collider

2020· article· en· W3023512674 on OpenAlexafffund
D. M. Gingrich, Brennan Undseth

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsVirtual black holeMicro black holeBlack hole (networking)Particle physicsColliderHawking radiationPlanck massFuzzballLarge extra dimensionHorizonLarge Hadron ColliderQuantum mechanicsExtremal black holeCharged black holeAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantum black hole production at the Large Hadron Collider is investigated using the horizon quantum mechanics model. This model has novel implications for how black holes might be observed in collider experiments. Black hole production is predicted to be possible below the Planck scale, thus leading to the intriguing possibility that black holes could be produced even if the Planck scale is slightly above the collider center of mass energy. In addition, the usual anticipated resonance in the black hole mass distribution is significantly widened in this model. For values of the Planck scale above the current lower limits, the shape of the black hole mass distribution is almost independent of the Planck scale and depends more on the number of extra dimensions. These model features suggest the need for alternative search strategies in collider experiments.

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)0.001
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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.349 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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