MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015710389 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2019-0580

Investigations on <sup>54–60</sup>Fe + <sup>238–244</sup>Pu → <sup>296–302</sup>120 fusion reactions

2020· article· en· W3015710389 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
H.C. Manjunatha, L. Seenappa, N. Sowmya, K.N. Sridhar

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsProjectileFusionEvaporationNuclear fusionNuclear physicsNucleusResidue (chemistry)Nuclear reactionAtomic physicsChemistryThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have studied the 54–60 Fe-induced fusion reactions to synthesize the superheavy nuclei 296–302 120 by studying the compound nucleus formation probability, survival probability, and evaporation residue cross-sections. The comparison of the evaporation residue cross-section for different targets reveals that the evaporation residue cross-section is larger for projectile target combination 58 Fe+ 243 Pu→ 301 120. We have identified the most probable 58 Fe-induced fusion reactions to synthesize superheavy nuclei 296–302 120. The suggested reactions may be useful to synthesize the superheavy element Z = 120.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations30
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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