Comparison between different proximity potentials and the double-folding model for spherical–deformed interacting nuclei
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Coulomb barrier parameters have been calculated for a spherical–deformed interacting pair of nuclei using 14 different versions of the proximity approaches and a simple analytical formula for the Coulomb part of the heavy ion potential. The results of these proximity versions have been compared with more accurate results obtained from the double-folding model (DFM). We have considered the interacting pair 48Ca + 238Pu as an example and assumed the presence of the quadrupole, octupole, and hexadecapole deformation parameters for 238Pu. The orientation angle dependence of the Coulomb barrier parameters has been computed for different sets of deformation parameters. We found that the proximity types named Prox77, BW Prox91, AW Prox95, Bass Prox77, and Bass Prox80 are the best ones of the available 14 versions of the proximity approaches for calculating the nuclear part of the interaction potential for a spherical–deformed pair of nuclei.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".