MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794567983 · doi:10.5539/jmsr.v7n2p34

The Collective Radioactive Decay of Atomic Nuclei Initiated by an External Mechanical Impact: Science Fiction or a New Class of Physical Processes

2018· article· en· W2794567983 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. K. Marakhtanov, В. С. Окунев

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials Science Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstronomical and nuclear sciences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBismuthRadioactive decayPhysicsRange (aeronautics)RadionuclideIsotopeAtomic physicsCluster (spacecraft)Atomic nucleusNuclear physicsMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abnormally high pressure or temperature can significantly reduce the lifetime of atomic nuclei including stable. A hypothesis on stable nuclei decays caused by mechanical collision of macro-objects containing these nuclei is put forward. Mechanisms of such decays are presented. At the same time the distance between interacting nuclei can be significantly higher than the range of nuclear interaction (as manifestations of strong interaction). In decays initiated by external impact, the mean lifetime with respect to particular decay can change depending on these factors. The hypothesis is verified experimentally. When a bismuth bullet collides with a steel flat target, we see different types of stable bismuth isotope decay including cluster one, which is not found in nature (if there is no external impacts). This new class of physical processes can be related to the collective radioactive decay of atomic nuclei initiated by an external mechanical impact.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.343 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials Science ResearchSame topicAstronomical and nuclear sciencesFrench-language works237,207