MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409666098 · doi:10.1103/physrevc.111.044911

Solvable model for spin polarizations with flow-momentum correspondence

2025· article· en· W4409666098 on OpenAlexaff
Wen-Bo Dong, Guo-Liang Ma, Shi Pu, Qun Wang

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. C · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersBasic and Applied Basic Research Foundation of Guangdong ProvinceNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaChinese Academy of SciencesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsFlow (mathematics)Momentum (technical analysis)Spin (aerodynamics)PhysicsQuantum electrodynamicsMathematical physicsMechanicsThermodynamicsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present an analytically solvable model based on the blast-wave picture of heavy-ion collisions with flow-momentum correspondence. It can describe the key features of spin polarization in heavy-ion collisions. With the analytical solution, we can clearly show that the spin polarization with respect to the reaction plane is driven by the directed flow, while the spin polarization along the beam direction is driven by the ellipticity in flow and in transverse emission area. There is a symmetry by interchanging $sinh\ensuremath{\rho}$ and $cosh\ensuremath{\rho}$ ($\ensuremath{\rho}$ is the transverse rapidity) between collective flow contributions to the spin polarization from the vorticity and from the shear stress tensor due to the flow-momentum correspondence. The solution can be improved systematically by perturbation method.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.361 · 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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