First Principles Description of the Giant Dipole Resonance in<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mmultiscripts><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">O</mml:mi><mml:mprescripts/><mml:none/><mml:mn>16</mml:mn></mml:mmultiscripts></mml:math>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a calculation of the giant dipole resonance in (16)O based on a nucleon-nucleon (NN) interaction from chiral effective field theory that reproduces NN scattering data with high accuracy. By merging the Lorentz integral transform and the coupled-cluster methods, we extend the previous theoretical limits for breakup observables in light nuclei with mass numbers (A ≤ 7) and address the collective giant dipole resonance of (16)O. We successfully benchmark the new approach against virtually exact results from the hyperspherical harmonics method in (4)He. Our results for (16)O reproduce the position and the total strength (bremsstrahlung sum rule) of the dipole response very well. When compared to the cross section from photoabsorption experiments, the theoretical curve exhibits a smeared form of the peak. The tail region between 40 and 100 MeV is reproduced within uncertainties.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".