MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405555131 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad90aa

Cosmic Censorship in Sgr A* and M87*: Observationally Excluding Naked Singularities

2024· article· en· W4405555131 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Avery E. Broderick, Kiana Salehi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsNaked singularityAstrophysicsEvent horizonAstronomyCosmic censorship hypothesisSupermassive black holeBlack hole (networking)GalaxyGravitational singularityEvent (particle physics)Quantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The imaging of Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*) and the supermassive black hole at the center of Messier 87 (M87*) by the Event Horizon Telescope constrains the location and nature of emission from these objects. Coupled with flux limits from the near-infrared through the ultraviolet, the attendant size constraints provide strong evidence for the absence of an accretion-powered photosphere, and therefore for the existence of an event horizon about an astrophysical black hole. Here, we demonstrate that a broad class of naked singularities exhibit inner turning points for time-like geodesics, and therefore may generically be excluded, regardless of the nature and unknown physical impact of the singularity itself, subject to the single weak assumption that its nongravitational impact is localized to its immediate vicinity. While we restrict our attention to static, spherically symmetric spacetimes, we are nevertheless able to exclude or constrain a large number of commonly invoked naked singularity spacetimes in this way.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations→French-language works237,207→