MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998768110 · doi:10.1103/physrevc.81.045804

Unified description of neutron superfluidity in the neutron-star crust with analogy to anisotropic multiband BCS superconductors

2010· article· en· W1998768110 on OpenAlexaff
N. Chamel, S. Goriely, John Pearson, M. Onsi

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review C · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuperfluidityNeutron starPhysicsPairingNeutronNuclear physicss-processAnisotropyCondensed matter physicsSuperconductivityQuantum mechanicsNuclear reaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The neutron superfluidity in the inner crust of a neutron star has traditionally been studied considering either homogeneous neutron matter or a small number of nucleons confined inside the spherical Wigner-Seitz cell. Drawing analogies with the recently discovered multiband superconductors, we have solved the anisotropic multiband BCS gap equations with Bloch boundary conditions, thus providing a unified description taking consistently into account both the free neutrons and the nuclear clusters. Calculations have been carried out using the effective interaction underlying our recent Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov nuclear mass model HFB-16. We have found that even though the presence of inhomogeneities lowers the neutron pairing gaps, the reduction is much less than that predicted by previous calculations using the Wigner-Seitz approximation. We have studied the disappearance of superfluidity with increasing temperature. As an application we have calculated the neutron specific heat, which is an important ingredient for modeling the thermal evolution of newly born neutron stars. This work provides a new scheme for realistic calculations of superfluidity in neutron-star crusts.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.230 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations41
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review CSame topicHigh-pressure geophysics and materialsFrench-language works237,207