MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994053414 · doi:10.1051/epjconf/201922301015

Optical Potentials: Microscopic vs. Phenomenological Approaches

2019· article· en· W2994053414 on OpenAlexaff
Paolo Finelli, Matteo Vorabbi, C. Giusti

Bibliographic record

VenueEPJ Web of Conferences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsNucleonObservableScatteringPhenomenological modelWork (physics)Nuclear physicsProtonParticle physicsTheoretical physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work we study the performances of our microscopic optical potential [1, 2], derived from nucleon-nucleon chiral potentials at fifth order (N 4 LO), in comparison with those of a successful non-relativistic phenomenological optical potential in the description of elastic proton scattering data on tin and lead isotopes at energies around and above 200 MeV. Our results indicate that microscopic optical potentials derived from nucleon-nucleon chiral potentials at N 4 LO can provide reliable predictions for observables of stable and exotic nuclei, even at energies where the robustness of the chiral expansion starts to be questionable.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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)0.0030.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.231 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEPJ Web of ConferencesSame topicNuclear physics research studiesFrench-language works237,207