MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034310027 · doi:10.1103/physrevc.68.024314

Many-body approach to proton emission and the role of spectroscopic factors

2003· article· en· W2034310027 on OpenAlexafffund
Jim Al-Khalili, C. Barbieri, Jutta Escher, B.K. Jennings, Jean-Marc Sparenberg

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review C · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaLawrence Livermore National LaboratoryU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsNormalization (sociology)Formalism (music)Square rootPhysicsComputational physicsMathematicsAtomic physicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The process of proton emission from nuclei is studied by utilizing the two-potential approach of Gurvitz and Kalbermann in the context of the full many-body problem. A time-dependent approach is used for calculating the decay width. Starting from an initial many-body quasistationary state, we employ the Feshbach projection operator approach and reduce the formalism to an effective one-body problem. We show that the decay width can be expressed in terms of a one-body matrix element multiplied by a normalization factor. We demonstrate that the traditional interpretation of this normalization as the square root of a spectroscopic factor is only valid for one particular choice of projection operator. This causes no problem for the calculation of the decay width in a consistent microscopic approach, but it leads to ambiguities in the interpretation of experimental results. In particular, spectroscopic factors extracted from a comparison of the measured decay width with a calculated single-particle width may be affected.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.479
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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