MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034891045 · doi:10.1088/1674-4527/10/10/006

Polarization in cyclotron radiation in strong magnetic fields

2010· article· en· W2034891045 on OpenAlexaff
L. Semionova, D. A. Leahy, Jorge Päez

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in Astronomy and Astrophysics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsElectronMagnetic fieldCyclotron radiationPolarization (electrochemistry)CyclotronTransition radiationCircular polarizationRadiationRadiative transferAtomic physicsAstrophysicsNuclear physicsOpticsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We revisit the problem of radiative transitions of electrons in the presence of a strong magnetic field. We derive fully relativistic cyclotron transition rates for an arbitrary magnetic field, for any orientation of electron spin and for any polarization of the emitted radiation. Also, we obtain the transition rates for any value of the initial electron's parallel momentum. For very strong magnetic fields, transitions to the ground state predominate. Transition rates summed over the electron's spin orientation and for unpolarized radiation are also obtained, which confirm previous results by Latal. Transition widths are calculated for different electron spin orientations and different polarizations of radiation. We obtain general expressions for transition rates that reduce to the results for the non-relativistic case and for unpolarized radiation. Additionally we get, for the non-relativistic approximation, the transition rates for any polarization of radiation. As an application, the first five emission lines are evaluated and compared to the X-ray emitting neutron star V0332+53, which has multiple observable cyclotron lines, taking into account gravitational redshift. The most probable polarization is ∊(2).

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)0.001
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 score0.550
Threshold uncertainty score0.624

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch in Astronomy and AstrophysicsSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207