MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387302688 · doi:10.1063/5.0156153

Thermodynamics of the electron–positron plasma at very high temperatures and sources of annihilation γ-quanta in our Galaxy

2023· article· en· W4387302688 on OpenAlexaff
Alexei M. Frolov

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics of Plasmas · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Molecular Physics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsFermi gasPlasmaAnnihilationPositronElectronFermi Gamma-ray Space TelescopeAtomic physicsFermionFermi–Dirac statisticsPhotonElectron temperatureCondensed matter physicsNuclear physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thermodynamic properties and equations of state of the electron–positron plasma (or gas) at high and very high temperatures (T≥170 keV) are derived and investigated. We have derived a number of simple analytical formulas for the Fermi–Dirac distribution functions, which can be applied to various Fermi gases and plasmas in different cases. Almost all these formulas are represented in the form of series expansions. The coefficients in these expansions are relatively simple functions of the μT ratio, where T is the temperature and μ is the chemical potential of this Fermi system. Our approach works well for high-temperature electron–positron plasmas, which are in thermal equilibrium with the photon gas of annihilation γ-quanta, and for the model gas of fermions, where there is no radiation at all. The first case corresponds to the ultra-relativistic limit for high-temperature electron–positron plasma, while the second case represents a model Fermi gas of particles, which has some non-zero chemical potential. By investigating sources of annihilation γ-quanta in our Galaxy, we have arrived to a remarkable conclusion about the high-temperature limit in our regular (photon) optics.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics of PlasmasSame topicAtomic and Molecular PhysicsFrench-language works237,207