MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027798770 · doi:10.1139/p03-068

Measurement and analysis of excitation functions for alpha-particle-induced reactions in rhenium

2004· article· en· W2027798770 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Namrata Singh, M. S. Gadkari

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsExcitationRheniumExcitation functionAtomic physicsAlpha particleNuclear reactionSpectroscopyIsotopeGermaniumExcitonFOIL methodNuclear physicsChemistrySiliconQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Excitation functions of the reactions 185Re[(α,n); (α,2n); (α,3n)] and 187Re[(α,n); (α,2n); (α,3n); (α,4n)] were investigated up to 50 MeV using the stacked-foil activation technique and high-purity germanium γ-ray spectroscopy method. Since the natural rhenium used as a target has two odd-mass stable isotopes of abundance 37.4% (185Re) and 62.6% (187Re), their activation in some cases gives the same residual nucleus through different reaction channels, but with very different Q values. In such cases, the individual reaction cross sections are separated with the help of the ratio of theoretical cross sections. The experimental cross sections were compared with the theoretical predictions considering equilibrium as well as pre-equilibrium contributions using code ALICE/90. It was found that the initial exciton configuration n0 = 4 (4p0h) appears to give a good fit to the experimental data. To the best of our knowledge, the excitation functions for 185Re[(α,n); (α,2n); (α,3n)] and 187Re[(α,3n); (α,4n)] reactions were measured for the first time. PACS No.: 25.55.–e

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)0.000
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
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicNuclear physics research studiesFrench-language works237,207