Consequences of broken axial symmetry in heavy nuclei—an overview of the situation in the valley of stability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An overview on the various effects of axial symmetry breaking is presented for medium heavy and heavy nuclei covering the mass number range 70 < A < 240. The discussion includes various observations for nuclei: level densities, spectroscopic features as energies and transition rates, ground state masses and finally the splitting of giant dipole resonances. Quadrupole moments and rates can be derived from models of triaxial rigid rotation or cranking for a given triaxiality parameters γ , but microscopic considerations are needed to predict these for each nucleus investigated. Respective predictions were adopted from recently made Hartree–Fock–Bogolyubov (HFB) calculations extended to arbitrary triaxiality by a generator coordinate method. In accord to these, various observations as reported in this overview demonstrate the importance of allowing a breaking of axial symmetry for heavy nuclei already in the valley of stability. Considering this breaking as indicated from the HFB approach surprisingly many experimental data are well described globally without the need for local fit parameters. In addition to these comparisons it will be shown that it is advantageous to consider c γ = cos(3 γ ) an indicator of axiality for heavy nuclei independent of their quadrupole moment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".