Violation of NCQ scaling in hadron elliptic flow in Au+Au collisions at <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" altimg="si1.svg"> <mml:msqrt> <mml:mrow> <mml:msub> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>s</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>N</mml:mi> <mml:mi>N</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> </mml:msub> </mml:mrow> </mml:msqrt> <mml:mo linebreak="goodbreak" linebreakstyle="after">=</mml:mo> <mml:mn>3.0</mml:mn> <mml:mo linebreak="goodbreak" linebreakstyle="after">−</mml:mo> <mml:mn>7.7</mml:mn> <mml:mspace width="0.2em"/> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi mathvariant="normal">GeV</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> </mml:math>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate the number-of-constituent-quark (NCQ) scaling of elliptic flow for various hadrons in non-central Au+Au collisions at s N N = 3.0 – 7.7 GeV using the AMPT model with string melting (SM) and pure hadron cascade (HC) modes. For the SM case, NCQ scaling is absent at s N N = 3.0 GeV but is largely restored by s N N = 3.9 GeV . Although quark coalescence occurs at s N N = 3.0 GeV , the lack of NCQ scaling is attributed to the insufficient development of quark elliptic flow and the limited production of strange quarks and antiquarks. This finding suggests that NCQ scaling could not be considered a definitive signature of quark-gluon plasma (QGP) formation in the RHIC fixed-target energy region. For the HC case, as expected, no NCQ scaling is observed. However, a mass ordering in the elliptic flow emerges at s N N = 4.5 GeV , indicating that full thermalization may not be a prerequisite for mass ordering.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".