MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Precision atomic physics techniques for nuclear physics with radioactive beams

2013· article· en· W2038660683 on OpenAlexaff
K. Blaum, J. Dilling, W. Nörtershäuser

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysica Scripta · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaTRIUMF
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsPenning trapNuclear physicsPhysics beyond the Standard ModelStorage ringSpinsAtomic physicsAtomic nucleusAtomic massIsotopeNuclear astrophysicsRadioactive decaySpectroscopyNuclear structureNucleosynthesisElectromagnetic massNuclear reactionParticle physicsElectronQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atomic physics techniques for the determination of ground-state properties of radioactive isotopes are very sensitive and provide accurate masses, binding energies, Q -values, charge radii, spins and electromagnetic moments. Many fields in nuclear physics benefit from these highly accurate numbers. They give insight into details of the nuclear structure for a better understanding of the underlying effective interactions, provide important input for studies of fundamental symmetries in physics, and help to understand the nucleosynthesis processes that are responsible for the observed chemical abundances in the Universe. Penning-trap and storage-ring mass spectrometry as well as laser spectroscopy of radioactive nuclei have now been used for a long time but significant progress has been achieved in these fields within the last decade. The basic principles of laser spectroscopic investigations, Penning-trap and storage-ring mass measurements of short-lived nuclei are summarized and selected physics results are discussed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.012

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations233
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysica ScriptaSame topicNuclear physics research studiesFrench-language works237,207