MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769049564 · doi:10.1051/epjconf/201716300045

Scattering of halo nuclei on heavy targets at energies around the Coulomb barrier: The case of <sup>11</sup>Be on <sup>197</sup>Au

2017· article· en· W2769049564 on OpenAlexafffund
V. Pesudo, M. J. G. Borge, A. M. Moro, J. A. Lay, E. Nácher, J. Gómez‐Camacho, O. Tengblad, L. Acosta, M. Alcorta, M. A. G. Álvarez, C. Andreoiu, P. C. Bender, R. Braid, M. Cubero, A. Di Pietro, J. P. Fernández-García, П. Фігуера, M. Fisichella, Benjamin J. Fulton, A. B. Garnsworthy, G. Hackman, U. Hager, O. S. Kirsebom, K. Kuhn, М. Латтуада, G. Marquínez-Durán, I. Martel, D. Miller, M. Moukaddam, P. D. O’Malley, Á. Perea, M. M. Rajabali, Á. M. Sánchez-Benítez, F. Sarazin, V. Scuderi, C. E. Svensson, C. Unsworth, Z.M. Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueEPJ Web of Conferences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsTRIUMFUniversity of GuelphSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaTRIUMFBritish Columbia Knowledge Development FundVillum Fonden
KeywordsHaloScatteringBreakupCoulomb barrierPhysicsCoulombInelastic scatteringElastic scatteringAtomic physicsMott scatteringNuclear physicsSmall-angle neutron scatteringQuantum mechanicsNeutron scatteringMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work reports on the scattering of 11Be on 197Au at energies around and below the Coulomb barrier. By experimentally identifying the elastic scattering, inelastic scattering and breakup channels, and comparing them with different calculations, valuable information on the 11Be structure and its B(E1) distribution to the continuum are obtained. On top of that, a deeper understanding of the scattering process at low energies is achieved for reactions of this kind, making these studies extendable to other loosely-bound systems like 17,19C

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEPJ Web of ConferencesSame topicNuclear physics research studiesFrench-language works237,207