MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

New Exact Solution of the Relativistic Boltzmann Equation and its Hydrodynamic Limit

2014· article· en· W1989496845 on OpenAlexafffund
Gabriel S. Denicol, Ulrich Heinz, Mauricio Martínez, Jorge Noronha, Michael Strickland

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNuclear PhysicsOffice of ScienceConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOhio State UniversityFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsPhysicsBoltzmann equationExact solutions in general relativityNon-equilibrium thermodynamicsElliptic flowInvariant (physics)Limit (mathematics)Classical mechanicsFlow (mathematics)Transverse planeEntropy (arrow of time)Boltzmann constantShear flowMechanicsStatistical physicsHeavy ionIonMathematical physicsQuantum mechanicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present an exact solution of the relativistic Boltzmann equation for a system undergoing boost-invariant longitudinal and azimuthally symmetric transverse flow ("Gubser flow"). The resulting exact nonequilibrium dynamics is compared to first and second order relativistic hydrodynamic approximations for various shear viscosity to entropy density ratios. This novel solution can be used to test the validity and accuracy of different hydrodynamic approximations in conditions similar to those generated in relativistic heavy-ion collisions.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
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 studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations141
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions ResearchFrench-language works237,207