MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Structure of magnetized strange quark star in perturbative QCD

2022· article· en· W4226486942 on OpenAlexaff
J. Sedaghat, S. M. Zebarjad, G. H. Bordbar, B. Eslam Panah

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Letters B · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of MazandaranShiraz University
KeywordsPhysicsQuark starStrange quarkQuarkParticle physicsQuantum chromodynamicsPerturbative QCDMassless particlePerturbation theory (quantum mechanics)Strange matterExotic starCompact starQuantum electrodynamicsAstrophysicsNeutron star

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have performed the leading order perturbative calculation to obtain the equation of state (EoS) of the strange quark matter (SQM) at zero temperature under the magnetic field B=1018G. The SQM comprises two massless quark flavors (up and down) and one massive quark flavor (strange). Consequently, we have used the obtained EoS to calculate the maximum gravitational mass and the corresponding radius of the magnetized strange quark star (SQS). We have employed two approaches, including the regular perturbation theory (RPT) and the background perturbation theory (BPT). In RPT the infrared (IR) freezing effect of the coupling constant has not been accounted for, while this effect has been included in BPT. We have obtained the value of the maximum gravitational mass to be more than three times the solar mass. The validity of isotropic structure calculations for SQS has also been investigated. Our results show that the threshold magnetic field from which an anisotropic approach begins to be significant lies in the interval 2×1018G<B<3×1018G. Furthermore, we have computed the redshift, compactness and Buchdahl-Bondi bound of the SQS to show that this compact object cannot be a black hole.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 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

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics Letters BSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207