MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027948934 · doi:10.1103/physrevc.71.044609

Coupling-in-the-continuum effects in Coulomb dissociation of halo nuclei

2005· article· en· W2027948934 on OpenAlexafffund
P. Capel, D. Baye

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review C · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsHaloCoulombBreakupAtomic physicsHalo nucleusDissociation (chemistry)ProjectileResonance (particle physics)Born approximationQuantum mechanicsScattering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Higher-order effects in the Coulomb dissociation of halo nuclei are investigated by comparing the first-order perturbation theory to the numerical resolution of a time-dependent Schr\"odinger equation. The calculations are performed for the breakup on a lead target of $^{11}\mathrm{Be}$ and $^{8}\mathrm{B}$. The populations of the different partial waves composing the $^{10}\mathrm{Be}$-neutron or $^{7}\mathrm{Be}$-proton continuum reveal that couplings in the continuum remain significant even at high impact parameters and high projectile-target relative velocities. Although the total breakup cross section is fairly well described by a first-order approximation, its partial-wave components reached by the first-order transitions are significantly depleted toward other partial waves after the closest approach. The information extracted by assuming the validity of the first-order approximation is affected by an energy distortion. Another distortion is caused by the presence of a resonance as exemplified by the $5/{2}^{+}$ resonance of $^{11}\mathrm{Be}$. Such effects may partly explain discrepancies between direct and indirect measurements of the astrophysical S factor of the $^{7}\mathrm{Be}(\text{p},\ensuremath{\gamma})^{8}\mathrm{B}$ reaction at stellar energies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.579
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations24
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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