MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Study of Astrophysically Important Resonant States in 30 S Using the 32 S(p,t) 30 S Reaction

2008· article· en· W2718014680 on OpenAlexaff
K. Setoodehnia, A.-A. Chen, J. A. Clark, D. Kahl

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstronomical and nuclear sciences
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsNova (rocket)White dwarfAstrophysicsPresolar grainsNucleosynthesisStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A small fraction (< 1%) of presolar SiC grains is suggested to have been formed in the ejecta of classical novae. The 29 P(p,γ) 30 S reaction plays an important role in understanding the Si isotopic abundances in such grains, which in turn provide us with information on the nature of the probable white dwarf progenitor’s core, as well as the peak temperatures achieved during nova outbursts. This rate is determined by two low-lying 3 + and 2 + resonances above the proton threshold in 30 S at 4399 keV. Despite several experimental studies in the past however, the 3 resonance has PoS(NIC X)161 only been recently observed in one experiment and no definitive evidence for the 2 + state has been published yet. We have studied the 30S nuclear structure via the 32S(p,t) 30S reaction at 5 laboratory angles between 9 ◦ to 62 ◦. We have observed between 8 to 14 states above the proton threshold including two levels at 4695.5 ± 3.5 keV and 4814.9 ± 3.5 keV that are candidates for the 3 + and previously “missing ” 2 + state, respectively. 10th Symposium on Nuclei in the Cosmos

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAstronomical and nuclear sciencesFrench-language works237,207