MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066961670 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.83.126013

Constraint-based approach to the chiral magnetic effect

2011· article· en· W2066961670 on OpenAlexaff
Lionel Brits, James Charbonneau

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsConstraint (computer-aided design)Boundary (topology)Magnetic fieldStarsCurrent (fluid)Quantum chromodynamicsHolographyTheoretical physicsBETA (programming language)Heavy ionBoundary value problemParticle physicsPulsarField (mathematics)IonQuantum mechanicsAstrophysicsPure mathematicsGeometryMathematical analysisComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a way to introduce the currents responsible for the chiral magnetic effect, and similar phenomena, into the AdS/CFT description. Such currents are thought to occur in heavy ion collisions due to topologically nontrivial field configurations and in dense stars due to beta decay. They may be responsible for the $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{C}\mathcal{P}$ odd effects seen at RHIC and the anomalously large velocities observed in some pulsars. We discuss the boundary conditions that allow the phenomenon to exist in real systems and show how one would introduce similar boundary conditions into a holographic model of QCD such that the current is reproduced.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations24
Published2011
Admission routes1
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