MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

First Penning-Trap Mass Measurement of the Exotic Halo Nucleus<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mmultiscripts><mml:mi>Li</mml:mi><mml:mprescripts/><mml:none/><mml:mn>11</mml:mn></mml:mmultiscripts></mml:math>

2008· article· lv· W1546360200 on OpenAlexaff
M. B. Smith, M. Brodeur, T. Brunner, S. Ettenauer, A. Lapierre, R. Ringle, V. L. Ryjkov, F. Ames, P. Bricault, G. W. F. Drake, P. P. J. Delheij, D. Lunney, F. Sarazin, J. Dilling

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2008
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorUniversity of British ColumbiaTRIUMF
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAtomic massHaloPenning trapNuclideAtomic physicsRADIUSNuclear physicsElectronQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this Letter, we report a new mass for 11Li using the trapping experiment TITAN at TRIUMF's ISAC facility. This is by far the shortest-lived nuclide, t_{1/2}=8.8 ms, for which a mass measurement has ever been performed with a Penning trap. Combined with our mass measurements of ;{8,9}Li we derive a new two-neutron separation energy of 369.15(65) keV: a factor of 7 more precise than the best previous value. This new value is a critical ingredient for the determination of the halo charge radius from isotope-shift measurements. We also report results from state-of-the-art atomic-physics calculations using the new mass and extract a new charge radius for 11Li. This result is a remarkable confluence of nuclear and atomic physics.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 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

Citations202
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicNuclear physics research studiesFrench-language works237,207