MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200078892 · doi:10.1103/physrevc.104.064908

Collective modes in anisotropic systems

2021· article· en· W4200078892 on OpenAlexafffund
M. E. Carrington, Bailey M. Forster, Sofiya Makar

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. C · 2021
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
KeywordsQuasiparticleAnisotropyIsotropyPhysicsScalar (mathematics)Tensor (intrinsic definition)Quark–gluon plasmaGluonPolarization (electrochemistry)Dispersion relationQuantum electrodynamicsQuarkStatistical physicsClassical mechanicsQuantum mechanicsMathematicsGeometryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study collective modes in anisotropic plasmas of quarks and gluons using a quasiparticle picture and a hard-loop approximation. We use a general class of anisotropic distribution functions, and we consider chirally asymmetric systems. We introduce a complete tensor basis to decompose the gluon polarization tensor into a set of nine scalar functions. We derive and solve the corresponding dispersion equations. Imaginary modes are particularly important because of their potential influence on plasma dynamics. We explore in detail their dependence on the chiral chemical potential and the parameters that characterize the anisotropy of the system. We show that our generalized distributions produce dispersion relations that are much richer in structure than those obtained with a simple one-parameter deformation of an isotropic distribution. In addition, the size and domain of the imaginary solutions are enhanced, relative to those obtained with a one-parameter deformation. Finally, we show that the influence of even a very small chiral chemical potential is significantly magnified when anisotropy is present.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.360
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. CSame topicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions ResearchFrench-language works237,207