MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Some recent experimental results related to nuclear chirality

2014· article· en· W2055949972 on OpenAlexaff
J. Timár, I. Kuti, D. Sohler, K. Starosta, T. Koike, E. S. Paul

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChirality (physics)Nuclear structurePhysicsChiral symmetryAtomic physicsParticle physicsQuantum chromodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detailed band structures of three chiral-candidate nuclei, 134 Pr, 132 La and 103 Rh have been studied. The aim of the study was twofold. First, to try to explore the reasons behind the contradiction between the theoretically predicted chirality in these nuclei and the recently observed fingerprints that suggest non-chiral interpretation for the previous chiral candidate band doublets. Second, to search for multiple chiral bands of different types in these nuclei. In 134 Pr a new π h 11/2 v h 11/2 band has been observed besides the previously known chiral-candidate π h 11/2 v h 11/2 doublet. This new band and the yrare π h 11/2 vh 11/2 band show the expected features of a chiral doublet structure. This fact combined with the observed similarity between the band structures of 134 Pr and 132 La suggests that chirality might exist in these nuclei. The detailed study of the 103 Rh band structure resulted in the observation of two new chiral-doublet looking structures besides the previously known one. This is indicative of possible existence of multiple chiral doublet structure in this nucleus.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicNuclear physics research studiesFrench-language works237,207