Multiplicity distributions of intermediate mass fragments in the thermodynamic model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiplicity distributions of intermediate mass fragments (IMFs) seen in intermediate energy heavy ion collisions have been of great interest in the last ten years. The distributions of single intermediate sized elements are close to Poissonian and have been subjected to widely different physical interpretations. We calculate the multiplicity distributions in a thermodynamic model whose physical basis is equal populations in phase space, which implies equilibrium statistics. We found distributions of a single element are to a good approximation Poissonian, and this result is attributed to the small emission probability of a given IMF among all the possible channels. We also found significant deviation from a Poisson distribution for a range of IMFs, and suggest strong correlations as an explanation. The systematics of the multiplicity distributions are explored in both one-component and two-component models. In the one-component model, sudden changes for the multiplicity distributions are found at the phase transition region. In the two-component model, the multiplicity distributions have more subtleties. Results from the current model are compared with available data, and good agreements are found. New signals for the multiparticle correlations are also suggested.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".