MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390227460 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.124066

Gravitational collapse in quadratic gravity

2023· article· en· W4390227460 on OpenAlexafffund
Ramiro Cayuso

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueOntario Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade
KeywordsPhysicsGeneral relativityEffective field theoryGravitationCurvatureQuadratic equationMassless particleClassical mechanicsTheoretical physicsScalar fieldParameterized post-Newtonian formalismGravitational collapseScalar (mathematics)Theory of relativityGravitational fieldScalar theories of gravitationField theory (psychology)Mathematical physicsClassical field theoryMathematicsQuantum mechanicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores the gravitational collapse of a massless scalar field within quadratic gravity treated as a dimension-four operator effective field theory extension to general relativity. The additional degrees of freedom associated with the higher derivatives in this theory are removed by an order reduction approach, where the truncated expansion nature of the theory is exploited. Through simulations, we find scenarios where solutions remain within the bounds of the effective field theory while displaying significant deviations from general relativity in the dynamics of curvature invariants during the collapse. Limitations of the approach taken, the effective field theory approximation, and the appearance of instabilities are also discussed.

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)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.464 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.→Same topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research→French-language works237,207→