MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156348057 · doi:10.1017/s1743921312024106

Does a hadron-quark phase transition in dense matter preclude the existence of massive neutron stars?

2012· article· en· W2156348057 on OpenAlexafffund
N. Chamel, A. F. Fantina, John Pearson, S. Goriely

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Astronomical Union · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRSEuropean Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsNeutron starStrange matterEquation of stateNuclear matterHadronQuark starPhase transitionNuclear physicsParticle physicsSofteningQuarkDense matterStarsPhase (matter)NucleonAstrophysicsCondensed matter physicsThermodynamicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We study the impact of a hadron-quark phase transition on the maximum neutron-star mass. The hadronic part of the equation of state relies on the most up-to-date Skyrme nuclear energy density functionals, fitted to essentially all experimental nuclear mass data and constrained to reproduce the properties of infinite nuclear matter as obtained from microscopic calculations using realistic forces. We show that the softening of the dense matter equation of state due to the phase transition is not necessarily incompatible with the existence of massive neutron stars like PSR J1614–2230.

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)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Astronomical UnionSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207