MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Elucidation of the Anomalous<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>9</mml:mn></mml:math>Isospin Quartet Behavior

2012· article· lv· W2413740388 on OpenAlexaff
M. Brodeur, T. Brunner, S. Ettenauer, A. Lapierre, R. Ringle, B. A. Brown, D. Lunney, J. Dilling

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstronomical and nuclear sciences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaTRIUMF
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMultipletPhysicsExcited stateAtomic physicsGround stateCoulombCharge (physics)Nuclear physicsParticle physicsQuantum mechanicsElectron

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent high-precision mass measurements of $^{9}\mathrm{Li}$ and $^{9}\mathrm{Be}$, performed with the TITAN Penning trap at the TRIUMF ISAC facility, are analyzed in light of state-of-the-art shell model calculations. We find an explanation for the anomalous isobaric mass multiplet equation behavior for the two $A=9$ quartets. The presence of a cubic $d=6.3(17)\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{keV}$ term for the ${J}^{\ensuremath{\pi}}=3/{2}^{\ensuremath{-}}$ quartet and the vanishing cubic term for the excited ${J}^{\ensuremath{\pi}}=1/{2}^{\ensuremath{-}}$ multiplet depend upon the presence of a nearby $T=1/2$ state in $^{9}\mathrm{B}$ and $^{9}\mathrm{Be}$ that induces isospin mixing. This is contrary to previous hypotheses involving purely Coulomb and charge-dependent effects. $T=1/2$ states have been observed near the calculated energy, above the $T=3/2$ state. However, an experimental confirmation of their ${J}^{\ensuremath{\pi}}$ is needed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations39
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicAstronomical and nuclear sciencesFrench-language works237,207