MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308798404 · doi:10.1016/j.aop.2022.169168

Weak gravity conjecture, black branes and violations of universal thermodynamics relation

2022· article· en· W4308798404 on OpenAlexaff
J. Sadeghi, Behnam Pourhassan, Saeed Noori Gashti, Sudhaker Upadhyay

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Physics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsCanadian Quantum Research Center
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsBlack braneBlack hole thermodynamicsBlack hole (networking)Massive gravityGeneral relativityEntropy (arrow of time)Hawking radiationBraneMicro black holeExtremal black holeBrane cosmologyTheoretical physicsClassical mechanicsMathematical physicsGravitationQuantum mechanicsGraviton

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The universal thermodynamic relations between corrections to entropy and extremality for various black hole solutions, like rotating-AdS black holes, charged black holes, rotating black holes in massive gravity, etc., have been studied by modifying general relativity. In this paper, we consider a number of the black brane in different structures, such as black brane solution in Rastall AdS massive gravity, Einstein–Yang–Mills AdS black brane solution in massive gravity, and general anisotropic black brane in Horava–Lifshitz gravity. Then, we study universal thermodynamic relations by using a small constant correction added to the action. We conclude that black brane violates the universal thermodynamic relations. In other words, these universal thermodynamic relations are not valid in the black brane structure.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations38
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of PhysicsSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207