MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770733320 · doi:10.1051/epjconf/201716300011

How well do we understand the reaction rate of C burning?

2017· article· en· W2770733320 on OpenAlexaff
S. Courtin, C. L. Jiang, G. Fruet, K. Auranen, M. L. Avila, A. D. Ayangeakaa, B. B. Back, S. Bottoni, M. P. Carpenter, C. Dickerson, B. DiGiovine, J. P. Greene, Deborah J. Henderson, C. R. Hoffman, R. V. F. Janssens, B. P. Kay, S. A. Kuvin, T. Lauritsen, R. C. Pardo, K. E. Rehm, D. Santiago-Gonzalez, J. Sethi, D. Seweryniak, R. Talwar, C. Ugalde, S. Zhu, C. M. Deibel, S. T. Marley, D. Bourgin, F. Haas, M. Heine, D. Montanari, D. G. Jenkins, L. Morris, A. Lefebvre-Schuhl, S. Almaraz-Calderon, Xiao Fang, Xiaodong Tang, M. Alcorta, B. Bucher, M. Albers, P. Bertone

Bibliographic record

VenueEPJ Web of Conferences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
FundersNuclear PhysicsScience and Technology Facilities CouncilU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsExcitation functionNuclear physicsCoincidenceNational laboratoryPhysicsCross section (physics)FusionExcitationNuclear reactionParticle (ecology)Atomic physicsChemistryEngineering physicsGeologyQuantum mechanicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbon burning plays a crucial role in stellar evolution, where this reaction is an important route for the production of heavier elements. A particle-γ coincidence technique that minimizes the backgrounds to which this reaction is subject and provides reliable cross sections has been used at the Argonne National Laboratory to measure fusion cross-sections at deep sub-barrier energies in the 12C+12C system. The corresponding excitation function has been extracted down to a cross section of about 6 nb. This indicates the existence of a broad S-factor maximum for this system. Experimental results are presented and discussed.

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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.395
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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