MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056234195 · doi:10.1103/physrevc.75.054609

Peripherality of breakup reactions

2007· article· en· W2056234195 on OpenAlexafffund
P. Capel, F. M. Nunes

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review C · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Department of EnergyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBreakupProjectilePhysicsWave functionNormalization (sociology)NucleonAtomic physicsNuclear physicsMechanicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sensitivity of elastic breakup to the interior of the projectile wave function is analyzed. Breakup calculations of loosely bound nuclei ($^{8}\mathrm{B}$ and $^{11}\mathrm{Be}$) are performed with two different descriptions of the projectile. The descriptions differ strongly in the interior of the wave function, but exhibit identical asymptotic properties, namely the same asymptotic normalisation coefficient, and phase shifts. Breakup calculations are performed at intermediate energies (40--70 MeV/nucleon) on lead and carbon targets as well as at low energy (26 MeV) on a nickel target. No dependence on the projectile description is observed. This result confirms that breakup reactions are peripheral in the sense that they probe only the external part of the wave function. These measurements are thus not directly sensitive to the total normalization of the wave function, i.e., spectroscopic factor.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.391
Teacher spread0.362 · 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

Citations32
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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