MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2924042912 · doi:10.1119/1.5089204

The fortuitous chain reaction

2019· article· en· W2924042912 on OpenAlexafffund
John Pearson

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFissile materialPhysicsChain reactionNuclideNuclear physicsSpontaneous fissionNucleosynthesisFissionNuclear reactionNeutronNuclear fissionDecay chainChain (unit)Quantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A very slight change in some nuclear properties would have been enough to make the fission chain reaction impossible. If the alpha-decay energy of 235U, the only naturally occurring fissile nuclide, were just 0.1 MeV higher than it actually is so little would remain in the Earth that extracting a critical mass would be close to impossible. Moreover, even with a sufficient abundance of 235U, if its scission point were shifted inwards by at most 2 fm not enough secondary neutrons would be emitted for a chain reaction to be possible. Speculating within the framework of the multiverse concept, we ask whether there could be a universe similar to ours in which intelligent life can emerge but in which the fission chain reaction is impossible.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designOther design
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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of PhysicsSame topicNuclear physics research studiesFrench-language works237,207