MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062704045 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.76.045019

QED electrical conductivity using the two-particle-irreducible effective action

2007· article· en· W2062704045 on OpenAlexafffund
M. E. Carrington, E. Kovalchuk

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions Research
Canadian institutionsBrandon UniversityWinnipeg Institute for Theoretical Physics
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEffective actionPhysicsAmplitudeInvariant (physics)Action (physics)Binary numberConductivitySquare (algebra)Electrical resistivity and conductivityQuantum electrodynamicsMathematical physicsQuantum mechanicsMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article we calculate the electrical conductivity in QED using the two-particle-irreducible (2PI) effective action. We use a resummed version of the usual 2PI effective action which is defined with respect to self-consistent solutions of the 2-point functions. We show that the Green functions obtained from this 2PI resummed effective action satisfy Ward identities and that the conductivity obtained from the Kubo relation is gauge-invariant. We work to 3-loop order in the 2PI resummed effective action and show explicitly that the resulting expression for the conductivity contains the square of the amplitude that corresponds to all binary collision and production processes.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Citations28
Published2007
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