Bibliographic record
Abstract
We estimate the production cross sections of hypernuclei in projectile-like fragments (PLFs) in heavy ion collisions. The discussed scenario for the formation cross section of a $\ensuremath{\Lambda}$ hypernucleus is (a) $\ensuremath{\Lambda}$ particles are produced in the participant region but have a considerable rapidity spread and (b) $\ensuremath{\Lambda}$ with rapidity close to that of the PLF and total momentum (in the rest system of the PLF) up to Fermi motion can then be trapped and produce hypernuclei. Process (a) is considered here within the heavy ion jet interaction generator (HIJING/B$\overline{\mathrm{B}}$) model, and process (b) in the canonical thermodynamic model (CTM). We estimate the production cross sections for a hypernucleus ${}_{\ensuremath{\Lambda}}^{{A}_{F}}Z$ where $Z=1$, $2$, $3$, and $4$ for C $+$ C at total nucleon-nucleon center of mass (c.m.) energy $\sqrt{{s}_{\mathit{NN}}}=3.7$ GeV, and for Ne $+$ Ne and Ar $+$ Ar collisions at $\sqrt{{s}_{\mathit{NN}}}=5.0$ GeV. By taking into account explicitly the impact parameter dependence of the colliding systems, it is found that the cross section is different from that predicted by the coalescence model, and large discrepancy is obtained for ${}_{\ensuremath{\Lambda}}^{6}$He and ${}_{\ensuremath{\Lambda}}^{9}$Be hypernuclei.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".