MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980118937 · doi:10.4006/0836-1398-32.3.307

Wrong math procedure used in nuclear physics for the calculation of magnetic moments of excited Z = N even‐even nuclei

2019· article· en· W2980118937 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wladimir Guglinski

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Essays · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsExcited stateTable (database)Nuclear dataNuclear structureMagnetic momentRaman spectroscopyAtomic nucleusNuclear physicsAtomic physicsStatistical physicsQuantum mechanicsNeutronData miningComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data extracted from the Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables [S. Raman et al ., At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 78 , 1 (2001)] are used for the calculation of magnetic moments of atomic nuclei. However, in October 2018, the author discovered that when nuclear theorists use Raman’s table, an incorrect math procedure is applied when calculating the magnetic moments for exotic excited even Z = N nuclei. Obviously, it is mandatory for nuclear theorists to ascertain the repercussions of such an error in nuclear physics.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.434
Threshold uncertainty score0.734

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics EssaysSame topicNuclear physics research studiesFrench-language works237,207