MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

First Direct Measurements of Superheavy-Element Mass Numbers

2018· article· en· W2902819569 on OpenAlexaff
J. M. Gates, G. K. Pang, J. L. Pore, Κ. Ε. Gregorich, J. T. Kwarsick, G. Savard, N. E. Esker, M. Kireeff Covo, M. J. Mogannam, J. C. Batchelder, D. L. Bleuel, R. M. Clark, H. L. Crawford, P. Fallon, Kathleen Hubbard, A. M. Hurst, I. T. Kolaja, A. O. Macchiavelli, C. Morse, R. Orford, L. Phair, M. A. Stoyer

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityTRIUMF
FundersLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryOak Ridge National LaboratoryLawrence Livermore National LaboratoryNuclear PhysicsOffice of ScienceU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsSuperheavy ElementsPhysicsCyclotronNuclear physicsMass numberCharge (physics)Atomic physicsParticle physicsElectron

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An experiment was performed at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's 88-in. Cyclotron to determine the mass number of a superheavy element. The measurement resulted in the observation of two α-decay chains, produced via the ^{243}Am(^{48}Ca,xn)^{291-x}Mc reaction, that were separated by mass-to-charge ratio (A/q) and identified by the combined BGS+FIONA apparatus. One event occurred at A/q=284 and was assigned to ^{284}Nh (Z=113), the α-decay daughter of ^{288}Mc (Z=115), while the second occurred at A/q=288 and was assigned to ^{288}Mc. This experiment represents the first direct measurements of the mass numbers of superheavy elements, confirming previous (indirect) mass-number assignments.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations56
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicNuclear physics research studiesFrench-language works237,207