MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

New developments on the recoil distance doppler-shift method

2010· article· en· W2067438388 on OpenAlexaff
C. Fransen, Α. Dewald, T. Baumann, D. Bazin, A. Blazhev, B. A. Brown, A. Chester, A. Gade, T. Glasmacher, P. T. Greenlees, M. Hackstein, S. Harissopulos, U. Jakobsson, J. Jolie, Peter G. Jones, R. Julin, S. Juutinen, S. Ketelhut, T Konstaninopoulos, A. Lagoyannis, M. Leino, P. Nieminen, M. Nyman, P. Petkov, P. Peura, Th. Pissulla, P. Rahkila, W. Rother, P. Ruotsalainen, J. Sarén, C. Scholey, J. Sorri, K. Starosta, A. Stolz, J. Uusitalo, P. Voss, D. Weißhaar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecoilPhysicsPlungerCoulomb excitationDoppler effectBeam (structure)Nuclear physicsExcited stateProjectileAtomic physicsNuclear reactionExcitationCoulomb barrierCoulombOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Absolute transition probabilities are fundamental observables for nuclear structure. The recoil-distance-Doppler-shift (RDDS) technique, also called plunger technique, is a well established tool for the determination of these important experimental quantities via the measurement of lifetimes of excited nuclear states. Nowadays nuclear structure investigations are concentrated on exotic nuclei which are often produced with extremely small cross sections or with very low beam intensities. In order to use the RDDS technique also for the investigation of very exotic nuclei this method has to be adapted to the specific needs of these special reactions. This article gives an overview on recent RDDS measurements with the new differential plunger in combination with particle detectors and recoil spectrometers. These were done with projectile multistep Coulomb excitation at low beam energies (≈ 5 MeV/u) and at intermediate beam energies (≈ 100 MeV/u) using one step Coulomb excitations and knockout reactions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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