MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4401122548 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.l021902

Triple points of gravitational AdS solitons and black holes

2024· article· en· W4401122548 on OpenAlexafffund
Constanza Quijada, Andrès Anabalòn, Robert B. Mann, Julio Oliva

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersFondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y TecnológicoNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAgencia Nacional de Investigación y DesarrolloFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsGravitationGravitational waveTheoretical physicsAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a triple point of a new kind for general relativity, at which two gravitational solitons can coexist with a planar black hole in anti–de Sitter space. Working in the context of nonlinear electrodynamics, we obtain simple, sensible spacetimes for which the thermodynamics can be studied in an analytic manner. The spacetimes are charged under the nonlinear electrodynamics leading to an electric charge for black holes and a magnetic flux for solitons. In the grand-canonical ensemble, we show that the phase space of the theory is very rich, containing reentrant phase transitions, as well as triple points, for small values of the coupling controlling the nonlinearity of the electrodynamics Lagrangian. Published by the American Physical Society 2024

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.002
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.382 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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