MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385326439 · doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aceb46

Greybody factors for higher-dimensional non-commutative geometry inspired black holes

2023· article· en· W4385326439 on OpenAlexafffund
Zachary Cox, D. M. Gingrich

Bibliographic record

VenueClassical and Quantum Gravity · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsSchwarzschild radiusBlack hole (networking)Hawking radiationMassless particleSchwarzschild metricGeometryQuantum mechanicsMathematical physicsGravitationGravitational waveGeneral relativity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Greybody factors are computed for massless fields of spin 0, 1/2, 1, and 2 emitted from higher-dimensional non-commutative geometry inspired black holes. Short-range potentials are used with path-ordered matrix exponentials to numerically calculate transmission coefficients. The resulting absorption cross sections and emission spectra are computed on the brane and compared with the higher-dimensional Schwarzschild–Tangherlini black hole. A non-commutative black hole at its maximum temperature in seven extra dimensions will radiate a particle flux and power of 0.72–0.81 and 0.75–0.81, respectively, times lower than a Schwarzschild–Tangherlini black hole of the same temperature. A non-commutative black hole at its maximum temperature in seven extra dimensions will radiate a particle flux and power of 0.64–0.72 and 0.60–0.64, respectively, times lower than a Schwarzschild–Tangherlini black hole of the same mass.

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)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
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)0.0060.000

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 head0.276
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClassical and Quantum GravitySame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207