MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069685116 · doi:10.1142/s0217979208050449

NON-MONOTONIC ALPHA- AND<sup>6</sup><font>Li</font>-POTENTIALS FROM ENERGY DENSITY FUNCTIONAL FORMALISM

2008· article· en· W2069685116 on OpenAlexaff
S. Hossain, A. K. Basak, M. Alfaz Uddin, M.N.A. Abdullah, I. Reichstein, F. B. Malik

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Modern Physics B · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersArmy Research OfficeUniversity Grants CommissionNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsPauli exclusion principleNucleonMean field theoryBinding energyScatteringMonotonic functionNuclear matterRoot mean squareFormalism (music)Elastic scatteringAtomic physicsNuclear physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present status of the α-nucleus potential, generated from the energy density functional (EDF) formalism using a realistic two-nucleon potential, which incorporates the Pauli principle, is discussed. The EDF potentials, calculated using a density distribution of α-particle that yields a binding energy of 20 MeV with a reasonable root-mean-squared radius and observed density distributions of 6 Li and various target nuclei, are found to be shallow and non-monotonic in character. This non-monotonic EDF potential reproduces satisfactorily the experimental elastic scattering data, particularly at energies above the Coulomb barrier. Since the elastic scattering data and the binding energies of all nuclei considered herein are well reproduced using the mean field generated from a realistic two-nucleon potential for nuclear and nucleonic matter, one may conclude to have reasonable information on the equation of states of nuclear and nucleonic matter from a very low to the saturation density from the present investigation.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Modern Physics BSame topicNuclear physics research studiesFrench-language works237,207