MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795033534 · doi:10.1103/physrevc.97.035807

Distribution of nuclei in equilibrium stellar matter from the free-energy density in a Wigner-Seitz cell

2018· article· en· W2795033534 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Guilherme Grams, S. Giraud, A. F. Fantina, F. Gulminelli

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. C · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorEuropean Cooperation in Science and Technology
KeywordsPhysicsNuclear matterStatistical physicsCluster expansionEquation of stateCluster (spacecraft)Quantum mechanicsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the present study is to calculate the nuclear distribution associated at finite temperature to any given equation of state of stellar matter based on the Wigner-Seitz approximation, for direct applications in core-collapse simulations. The Gibbs free energy of the different configurations is explicitly calculated, with special care devoted to the calculation of rearrangement terms, ensuring thermodynamic consistency. The formalism is illustrated with two different applications. First, we work out the nuclear statistical equilibrium cluster distribution for the Lattimer and Swesty equation of state, widely employed in supernova simulations. Secondly, we explore the effect of including shell structure, and consider realistic nuclear mass tables from the Brussels-Montreal Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov model (specifically, HFB-24). We show that the whole collapse trajectory is dominated by magic nuclei, with extremely spread and even bimodal distributions of the cluster probability around magic numbers, demonstrating the importance of cluster distributions with realistic mass models in core-collapse simulations. Simple analytical expressions are given, allowing further applications of the method to any relativistic or nonrelativistic subsaturation equation of state.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations19
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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