MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7105847999 · doi:10.1103/lc67-5ytb

Sourced Carrollian fluids dual to black hole horizons

2025· article· en· W7105847999 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistry of Colleges and UniversitiesCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchInnovation, Science and Economic Development CanadaInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueGovernment of OntarioGovernment of Canada
KeywordsEvent horizonMassless particleHorizonBlack hole (networking)Scalar fieldScalar (mathematics)Perturbation (astronomy)New horizons

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The (degenerate) geometry of event horizons is linked to Carrollian fluids. We investigate the behavior of event horizons via a perturbative coupling to a massless scalar field, making connections to Carrollian hydrodynamics with a driving source, and discuss the fluid equilibration in tandem with the horizon's relaxation to equilibrium. We observe that after the perturbation dies off, the Carrollian fluid energy and momentum densities approach equilibrium as the horizon asymptotically becomes nonexpanding. We connect the equilibration of the Carrollian fluid dual to the black hole horizon through the expansion of its background geometry.

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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.370 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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