MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801288501 · doi:10.1063/1.5030807

Impact of the 26mAl(p, γ) reaction to galactic 26Al yield

2018· article· en· W2801288501 on OpenAlexaff
D. Kahl, Hideki Shimizu, H. Yamaguchi, K. Abe, O. Beliuskina, S. M., K. Y. Chae, A. A. Chen, Z. W. Ge, S. Hayakawa, N. Imai, N. Iwasa, A. Kim, D. H. Kim, M. J. Kim, S. Kubono, M. S. Kwag, J. F. Liang, J. Y. Moon, S. Nishimura, S. Oka, S. Y. Park, A. Psaltis, T. Teranishi, Y. Ueno, L. Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP conference proceedings · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsYield (engineering)GalaxyNuclear astrophysicsObservableInterstellar mediumAstrophysicsNuclear reactionProtonNuclear physicsRadiative transfer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Astrophysical observables that are directly linked to nuclear physics inputs provide critical and stringent constraints on nucleosynthetic models. As 26Al was the first specific radioactivity observed in the Galaxy, its origin has fascinated the nuclear astrophysics community for nearly forty years. Despite extensive research, the precise origins of 26Al remain elusive. At present, the sum of all putative stellar contributions generally overestimates the 26Al mass in the interstellar medium. Among the many reactions that influence the yield of 26Al, radiative proton capture on its isomer 26mAl is one of the least constrained reactions by experimental data. To this end, we developed a 26Al isomeric beam and performed proton elastic scattering to search for low-spin states in 27Si. The experimental method and the preliminary results of this on-going study will be presented.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIP conference proceedingsSame topicNuclear physics research studiesFrench-language works237,207