Bibliographic record
Abstract
The introduction of thermodynamics into gravitational physics began 5 decades ago with the discovery that black holes behave like thermodynamic systems once semiclassical quantum effects are taken into account. Notions of temperature, entropy, work and phase changes that were introduced into gravitational physics and originally applied to black holes, were later extended to cosmological horizons and other settings as well. A major development occurred 15 years ago with the introduction of pressure in the form of a cosmological constant. By extending the thermodynamic phase-space to include this term, along with its conjugate volume, black holes were found to exhibit a broad variety of phase transitions that resembled phenomena seen in chemistry labs. Black hole thermodynamics has become Black Hole Chemistry, which has led to a wealth of insights into the nature of black holes, introducing concepts such as Van der Waals fluids, reentrant phase transitions and triple points into gravitational physics. I discuss the origins of Black Hole Chemistry and its basic features covered in an earlier review [D. Kubiznak, R. B. Mann and M. Teo, Black hole chemistry: Thermodynamics with Lambda, Class. Quantum Grav. 34 (2017) 063001, [arXiv:1608.06147]], and then go on to describe developments in the subject that have taken place since then. Examples include multicritical behaviour, polymeric transitions, superfluid transitions, scalar hair, heat engines, NUT-charge, acceleration thermodynamics, the Joule–Thompson expansion, holography, complexity, central charge criticality, microstructure, thermodynamic tension, phase dynamics and thermodynamic topology. This wealth of new phenomena suggest that we likely still have a lot to learn from Black Hole Chemistry.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".