MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048175477 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.125026

Studying the validity of relativistic hydrodynamics with a new exact solution of the Boltzmann equation

2014· article· en· W2048175477 on OpenAlexafffund
Gabriel S. Denicol, Ulrich Heinz, Mauricio Martínez, Jorge Noronha, Michael Strickland

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGoethe-Universität Frankfurt am MainConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoOffice of ScienceTechnische Universität WienNuclear PhysicsUniversität WienFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsPhysicsBoltzmann equationInvariant (physics)Heavy ionEntropy (arrow of time)Statistical physicsBoltzmann constantClassical mechanicsMathematical physicsElliptic flowIonQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bjorken hydrodynamics applies to the boost invariant regime of heavy ion collisions; Gubser generalized this to nuclei of finite radius. Assuming Gubser's symmetry, the authors solve the Boltzmann equation numerically, and show that hydrodynamics is applicable in a much larger regime than one might naively expect, even when the ratio of the shear viscosity to the entropy density is relatively large.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations115
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmologySame topicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions ResearchFrench-language works237,207