Differential cross section and analyzing power measurements for<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>→</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mover><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math>elastic scattering at 248 MeV
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The differential cross sections and vector analyzing powers for $\mathit{nd}$ elastic scattering at ${E}_{n}=248$ MeV were measured for $10\ifmmode^\circ\else\textdegree\fi{}--180\ifmmode^\circ\else\textdegree\fi{}$ in the center-of-mass (c.m.) system. To cover the wide angular range, the experiments were performed separately by using two different setups for forward and backward angles. The data are compared with theoretical results based on Faddeev calculations with realistic nucleon-nucleon ($\mathit{NN}$) forces such as AV18, CD Bonn, and Nijmegen I and II, and their combinations with the three-nucleon forces (3NFs), such as Tucson-Melbourne 99 (TM99), Urbana IX, and the coupled-channel potential with \ensuremath{\Delta}-isobar excitation. Large discrepancies are found between the experimental cross sections and theory with only $2N$ forces for ${\ensuremath{\theta}}_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}>90\ifmmode^\circ\else\textdegree\fi{}$. The inclusion of 3NFs brings the theoretical cross sections closer to the data but only partially explains this discrepancy. For the analyzing power, no significant improvement is found when 3NFs are included. Relativistic corrections are shown to be small for both the cross sections and the analyzing powers at this energy. For the cross sections, these effects are mostly seen in the very backward angles. Compared with the $\mathit{pd}$ cross section data, quite significant differences are observed at all scattering angles that cannot be explained only by the Coulomb interaction, which is usually significant at small angles.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.169 | 0.002 |
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 it