MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411523180 · doi:10.1007/s10714-025-03437-7

Black Holes as Laboratories: Tests of General Relativity

2025· review· en· W4411523180 on OpenAlexafffund
Ruth Gregory, S. Nissanke

Bibliographic record

VenueGeneral Relativity and Gravitation · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilMinistry of Colleges and UniversitiesInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekGovernment of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsTheory of relativityGeneral relativityTheoretical physicsDifferential geometryClassical mechanicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We briefly overview the case for using black holes as a discriminator for theories of gravity. The opportunities and challenges for the various observational experiments are outlined, and key questions for the community identified. This note summarises the discussion from the roundtable on the third day of Black Holes Inside and Out .

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.477
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.360 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneral Relativity and GravitationSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207