MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3044747467 · doi:10.1103/physrevc.102.011303

Spin-trap isomers in deformed, odd-odd nuclei in the light rare-earth region near <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>98</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math>

2020· article· lv· W3044747467 on OpenAlexafffundabout
R. Orford, F. G. Kondev, G. Savard, J. A. Clark, W. S. Porter, D. Ray, F. Buchinger, M. T. Burkey, D. Gorelov, D. J. Hartley, J. Klimeš, K. S. Sharma, A. A. Valverde, Xin Yan

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. C · 2020
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaMcGill University
FundersNuclear PhysicsNational Nuclear Security AdministrationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOffice of Defense Nuclear NonproliferationU.S. Department of EnergyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsIsotopeSpin (aerodynamics)Atomic physicsNuclear physicsPenning trapNeutronElectron

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Masses of neutron-rich, odd-odd Pm, Eu, and Tb nuclei near $N=98$ were measured using the Canadian Penning Trap mass spectrometer at the Californium Rare Isotope Breeder Upgrade (CARIBU) facility. High-resolution mass measurements yielded the discovery of spin-trap isomers at $N=97$ in $^{162}\mathrm{Tb}$, and in the $N=99$ isotones of $^{160}\mathrm{Pm}$ and $^{164}\mathrm{Tb}$. Furthermore, no evidence of long-lived isomers were observed at $N=95$ in $^{158}\mathrm{Eu}$, at $N=97$ in $^{158}\mathrm{Pm}$, nor at $N=101$ in $^{164}\mathrm{Eu}$ and $^{166}\mathrm{Tb}$. These experimental observations are compared to results from multiquasiparticle blocking calculations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.254 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. CSame topicNuclear physics research studiesFrench-language works237,207