MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399628015 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.114020

Introducing the concept of the Widom line in the QCD phase diagram

2024· article· en· W4399628015 on OpenAlexafffund
G. Sordi, A.–M. S. Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanada First Research Excellence Fund
KeywordsQuantum chromodynamicsPhysicsCritical point (mathematics)Critical lineSupercritical fluidPhase diagramQuark–gluon plasmaContext (archaeology)Phase transitionParticle physicsCritical phenomenaQCD matterCrossoverTheoretical physicsPhase (matter)Condensed matter physicsThermodynamicsQuantum mechanicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Critical phenomena emerging from the critical end point of a first-order transition are ubiquitous in nature. Here we bring the concept of a supercritical crossover, the Widom line, initially developed in the context of fluids, into the interacting matter described by quantum chromodynamics (QCD). We show that the existence of the putative critical end point between hadron gas and quark-gluon plasma in the temperature versus chemical potential of the QCD phase diagram implies the existence of a Widom line emerging from it in the supercritical region. We survey the thermodynamic anomalies already identified in simplified theoretical models of QCD exhibiting a critical end point, to show that they can be interpreted in terms of a Widom line. Then we suggest possible directions where the Widom line concept could provide new light on the QCD phase diagram. Published by the American Physical Society 2024

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)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.446 · 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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions ResearchFrench-language works237,207