MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2444283525 · doi:10.1103/physrevc.93.064310

Isobaric multiplet mass equation in the<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>31</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.16em"/><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>3</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math>quartets

2016· article· lv· W2444283525 on OpenAlexafffund
M. B. Bennett, C. Wrede, B. A. Brown, S. N. Liddick, D. Pérez–Loureiro, D. W. Bardayan, A. A. Chen, K. A. Chipps, C. Fry, Brent Glassman, C. Langer, N. Larson, E. McNeice, Z. Meisel, W.-J. Ong, P. D. O’Malley, S. D. Pain, C. J. Prokop, Sanford Schwartz, S. Suchyta, P. Thompson, James Walters, X. Xu

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. C · 2016
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Department of EnergyNational Nuclear Security AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMultipletIsospinPhysicsIsobaric processAtomic physicsMixing (physics)Ground stateNuclear physicsQuantum mechanicsSpectral lineThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The observed mass excesses of analog nuclear states with the same mass number $A$ and isospin $T$ can be used to test the isobaric multiplet mass equation (IMME), which has, in most cases, been validated to a high degree of precision. A recent measurement [Kankainen et al., Phys. Rev. C 93, 041304(R) (2016)] of the ground-state mass of $^{31}\mathrm{Cl}$ led to a substantial breakdown of the IMME for the lowest $A=31,\phantom{\rule{0.16em}{0ex}}T=3/2$ quartet. The second-lowest $A=31,\phantom{\rule{0.16em}{0ex}}T=3/2$ quartet is not complete, due to uncertainties associated with the identity of the $^{31}\mathrm{S}$ member state.Purpose: Our goal is to populate the two lowest $T=3/2$ states in $^{31}\mathrm{S}$ and use the data to investigate the influence of isospin mixing on tests of the IMME in the two lowest $A=31,\phantom{\rule{0.16em}{0ex}}T=3/2$ quartets.Methods: Using a fast $^{31}\mathrm{Cl}$ beam implanted into a plastic scintillator and a high-purity Ge $\ensuremath{\gamma}$-ray detection array, $\ensuremath{\gamma}$ rays from the $^{31}\mathrm{Cl}(\ensuremath{\beta}\ensuremath{\gamma})^{31}\mathrm{S}$ sequence were measured. Shell-model calculations using USDB and the recently-developed USDE interactions were performed for comparison.Results: Isospin mixing between the $^{31}\mathrm{S}$ isobaric analog state (IAS) at 6279.0(6) keV and a nearby state at 6390.2(7) keV was observed. The second $T=3/2$ state in $^{31}\mathrm{S}$ was observed at ${E}_{x}=7050.0(8)$ keV. Calculations using both USDB and USDE predict a triplet of isospin-mixed states, including the lowest $T=3/2$ state in $^{31}\mathrm{P}$, mirroring the observed mixing in $^{31}\mathrm{S}$, and two isospin-mixed triplets including the second-lowest $T=3/2$ states in both $^{31}\mathrm{S}$ and $^{31}\mathrm{P}$.Conclusions: Isospin mixing in $^{31}\mathrm{S}$ does not by itself explain the IMME breakdown in the lowest quartet, but it likely points to similar isospin mixing in the mirror nucleus $^{31}\mathrm{P}$, which would result in a perturbation of the $^{31}\mathrm{P}$ IAS energy. USDB and USDE calculations both predict candidate $^{31}\mathrm{P}$ states responsible for the mixing in the energy region slightly above ${E}_{x}=6400$ keV. The second quartet has been completed thanks to the identification of the second $^{31}\mathrm{S} T=3/2$ state, and the IMME is validated in this quartet.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, 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 score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.007
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0070.006
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0550.014

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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