MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3102525546

1 Effective source approach to self-force calculations

2011· article· en· W3102525546 on OpenAlexaff
Ian Vega, Barry Wardell, Peter Diener

Bibliographic record

VenueCivil War Book Review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsSpacetimePoint particleScalar (mathematics)SlicingClassical mechanicsPoint (geometry)Theoretical physicsPoint sourceBoundary value problemWork (physics)Statistical physicsComputer scienceQuantum mechanicsGeometry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerical evaluation of the self-force on a point particle is made difficult by the use of delta functions as sources. Recent methods for self-force calculations avoid delta functions altogether, using instead a finite and extended 'effective source' for a point particle. We provide a review of the general principles underlying this strategy, using the specific example of a scalar point charge moving in a black hole spacetime. We also report on two new developments: (i) the construction and evaluation of an effective source for a scalar charge moving along a generic orbit of an arbitrary spacetime, and (ii) the successful implementation of hyperboloidal slicing that significantly improves on previous treatments of boundary conditions used for effective-source-based self-force calculations. Finally, we identify some of the key issues related to the effective source approach that will need to be addressed by future work. © 2011 IOP Publishing Ltd.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations14
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCivil War Book ReviewSame topicAstrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsFrench-language works237,207