MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410481604 · doi:10.1103/dqbd-9z5f

Beyond Buchdahl’s limit: Bilayered stars and thin-shell configurations

2025· article· en· W4410481604 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft Dynamics and Control
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónJunta de AndalucíaMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónUniversity of Waterloo“la Caixa” Foundation
KeywordsStarsLimit (mathematics)Shell (structure)Materials scienceAstrophysicsPhysicsAstronomyComposite materialMathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the theoretical motivations behind the belief that black holes as described by general relativity exist in nature is that it is hard to find matter configurations that mimic their properties, especially their compactness. One of the classic results that go in this direction is the so-called Buchdahl limit: a bound for the maximum compactness that spherically symmetric isotropic fluid spheres in hydrostatic equilibrium can possibly achieve with an outward-decreasing energy density. However, physically realistic situations could violate both isotropy and the monotonicity of the density profile. Notably, Bondi already showed that if the density profile is allowed to be arbitrary (but remains non-negative), a less restrictive compactness bound emerges. Furthermore, if negative energy densities are permitted, configurations can approach the black hole compactness limit arbitrarily closely. In this work we introduce a set of simple bilayered and thin-shell toy models designed to illustrate the effect of relaxing separately the assumptions of Buchdahl’s theorem. Within these models we highlight the existence of two special examples that we have called anti–de Sitter stars and Einstein static stars. We also discuss how these toy models may represent some of the main features of realistic systems and how they could be extended to find more refined models. © 2025 American Physical Society.

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)0.002
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.341 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicSpacecraft Dynamics and ControlFrench-language works237,207