MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092985169 · doi:10.1103/physrevc.78.015803

Enhancement of deuteron-fusion reactions in metals and experimental implications

2008· article· en· W2092985169 on OpenAlexaff
A. Huke, K. Czerski, P. Heide, G. Ruprecht, N. Targosz, W. Żebrowski

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review C · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear Physics and Applications
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeuteriumScreening effectElectronPauli exclusion principleResidualDebyeNuclear fusionMaterials sciencePhysicsAtomic physicsChemistryNuclear physicsChemical physicsCondensed matter physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent measurements of the reaction $^{2}\mathrm{H}$$(d,p)$$^{3}\mathrm{H}$ in metallic environments at very low energies performed by different experimental groups point to an enhanced electron screening effect. However, the resulting screening energies differ strongly for diverse host metals and different experiments. Here, we present new experimental results and investigations of interfering processes in the irradiated targets. These measurements inside metals set special challenges and pitfalls that make them and the data analysis particularly error prone. There are multiparameter collateral effects that are crucial for the correct interpretation of the observed experimental yields. They mainly originate from target surface contaminations owing to residual gases in the vacuum as well as from inhomogeneities and instabilities in the deuteron density distribution in the targets. To address these problems an improved differential analysis method beyond the standard procedures has been implemented. Profound scrutiny of the other experiments demonstrates that the observed unusual changes in the reaction yields are mainly due to deuteron density dynamics simulating the alleged screening energy values. The experimental results are compared with different theoretical models of the electron screening in metals. The Debye-H\"uckel model that has been previously proposed to explain the influence of the electron screening on both nuclear reactions and radioactive decays can be clearly excluded.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations107
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review CSame topicNuclear Physics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207