MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2339616754 · doi:10.1103/physrevc.92.054603

Spin differences in the <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:mmultiscripts><mml:mi>Zr</mml:mi><mml:mprescripts/><mml:none/><mml:mrow><mml:mn>90</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mmultiscripts></mml:mrow></mml:math> compound nucleus induced by <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math>, <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math>, and <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math> surrogate reactions

2015· article· lv· W2339616754 on OpenAlexaff
S. Ota, J. T. Harke, R. J. Casperson, Jutta Escher, R. O. Hughes, J. J. Ressler, N. D. Scielzo, I. J. Thompson, R. A. E. Austin, B. Abromeit, N. J. Foley, E. McCleskey, M. McCleskey, H. I. Park, A. Saastamoinen, Thomas J. Ross

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review C · 2015
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceLos Alamos National LaboratoryTexas A and M UniversityLawrence Livermore National LaboratoryU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsPhysicsEnergy (signal processing)Atomic physicsNuclear reactionSpinsCrystallographyCondensed matter physicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of the production mechanism on the decay of a compound nucleus is investigated. The nucleus $^{90}\mathrm{Zr}$ was produced by three different reactions, namely $^{90}\mathrm{Zr}(p,{p}^{\ensuremath{'}})^{90}\mathrm{Zr}$, $^{91}\mathrm{Zr}(p,d)^{90}\mathrm{Zr}$, and $^{92}\mathrm{Zr}(p,t)^{90}\mathrm{Zr}$, which served as surrogate reactions for $^{89}\mathrm{Zr}(n,\ensuremath{\gamma})$. The spin-parity $({J}^{\ensuremath{\pi}})$ distributions of the states populated by these reactions were studied to investigate the surrogate reaction approach, which aims at indirectly determining cross sections for compound-nuclear reactions involving unstable targets such as $^{89}\mathrm{Zr}$. Discrete $\ensuremath{\gamma}$ rays, associated with transitions in $^{90}\mathrm{Zr}$ and $^{89}\mathrm{Zr}$, were measured in coincidence with light ions for scattering angles of ${25}^{\ensuremath{\circ}}--{60}^{\ensuremath{\circ}}$ and $^{90}\mathrm{Zr}$ excitation energies extending above the neutron separation energy. The measured transition systematics were used to gain insights into the ${J}^{\ensuremath{\pi}}$ distributions of $^{90}\mathrm{Zr}$. The $^{90}\mathrm{Zr}(p,{p}^{\ensuremath{'}})$ reaction was found to produce fewer $\ensuremath{\gamma}$ rays associated with transitions involving high spin states $(J=6--8\phantom{\rule{4.pt}{0ex}}\ensuremath{\hbar})$ than the other two reactions, suggesting that inelastic scattering preferentially populates states in $^{90}\mathrm{Zr}$ that have lower spins than those populated in the transfer reactions investigated. The $\ensuremath{\gamma}$-ray production was also observed to vary by factors of 2--3 with the angle at which the outgoing particle was detected. These findings are relevant to the application of the surrogate reaction approach.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0080.014
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.014
Bibliometrics0.0040.009
Science and technology studies0.0120.014
Scholarly communication0.0120.011
Open science0.0160.016
Research integrity0.0130.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1280.018

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.238 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review CSame topicNuclear physics research studiesFrench-language works237,207