MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2621182606 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2016-0766

Shock wave occurrence and soliton propagation in polariton condensates

2017· article· en· W2621182606 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abderahim Mahmoud Belounis, S. Kessal

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStrong Light-Matter Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsPolaritonSolitonShock waveQuantum electrodynamicsPerturbation (astronomy)Burgers' equationKorteweg–de Vries equationClassical mechanicsQuantum mechanicsMechanicsPartial differential equationNonlinear systemOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the effects of the gain and the loss of polaritons on the wave propagation in polariton condensates. This system is described by a modified Gross–Pitaevskii equation. In the case of small damping, we use the reductive perturbation method to transform this equation; we get a modified Burgers equation in the dispersionless limit and a damped Korteweg – de Vries equation in a more general case. We demonstrate that the shock wave occurrence depends on the gain and the loss of polaritons in the dispersionless polariton condensate. The resolution of the damped Korteweg – de Vries equation shows that the soliton behaves like a damped wave in the case of a constant damping. Based on an asymptotic solution, the survival time and the distance traveled by this soliton are evaluated. We solve the damped Korteweg – de Vries equation and the modified Gross–Pitaevskii numerically to validate the analytical calculations and discuss especially the soliton propagation in the system.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicStrong Light-Matter InteractionsFrench-language works237,207