MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3098214040 · doi:10.1088/1361-6471/abdd8e

Rotational bands beyond the Elliott model

2021· article· en· W3098214040 on OpenAlexafffund
Ryan Zbikowski, Calvin W. Johnson, Anna E. McCoy, M. A. Caprio, Patrick J. Fasano

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics G Nuclear and Particle Physics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
FundersNuclear PhysicsOffice of ScienceNational Research Council CanadaNational Energy Research Scientific Computing CenterTRIUMFU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsPhysicsQuadrupoleSymplectic geometryYrastNucleonMathematical physicsAtomic physicsQuantum mechanicsMathematicsIsotopeGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rotational bands are commonplace in the spectra of atomic nuclei. Inspired by early descriptions of these bands by quadrupole deformations of a liquid drop, Elliott constructed discrete nucleon representations of SU(3) from fermionic creation and annihilation operators. Ever since, Elliott’s model has been foundational to descriptions of rotation in nuclei. Later work, however, suggested the symplectic extension Sp(3, R ) provides a more unified picture. We decompose no-core shell-model nuclear wave functions into symmetry-defined subspaces for several beryllium isotopes, as well as 20 Ne, using the quadratic Casimirs of both Elliott’s SU(3) and Sp(3, R ). The band structure, delineated by strong B ( E 2) values, has a more consistent description in Sp(3, R ) rather than SU(3). In particular, we confirm previous work finding in some nuclides strongly connected upper and lower bands with the same underlying symplectic structure.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics G Nuclear and Particle PhysicsSame topicNuclear physics research studiesFrench-language works237,207