MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213414821 · doi:10.1051/epjconf/202226011046

Measuring the <sup>15</sup>O(α, γ)<sup>19</sup>Ne reaction in Type I X-ray bursts using the GADGET II TPC: Hardware

2022· article· en· W4213414821 on OpenAlexaff
T. Wheeler, Andrew Adams, J. M. Allmond, H. Alvarez Pol, E. Argo, Y. Ayyad, D. W. Bardayan, D. Bazin, Tamas Budner, A. Chen, K. A. Chipps, B. Davids, J. Dopfer, M. Friedman, H. O. U. Fynbo, R. Grzywacz, J. José, J. F. Liang, Ruchi Mahajan, S. D. Pain, D. Pérez–Loureiro, E. C. Pollacco, A. Psaltis, Saiprasad Ravishankar, A. M. Rogers, L. Schaedig, L. J. Sun, J. Surbrook, L. E. Weghorn, C. Wrede

Bibliographic record

VenueEPJ Web of Conferences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear Physics and Applications
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear LaboratoriesTRIUMFMcMaster University
FundersU.S. Department of EnergyOffice of ScienceNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGadgetPhysicsProtonResonance (particle physics)Sensitivity (control systems)Particle identificationDetectorNuclear physicsAtomic physicsComputer scienceOpticsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sensitivity studies have shown that the 15 O(α, γ) 19 Ne reaction is the most important reaction rate uncertainty affecting the shape of light curves from Type I X-ray bursts. This reaction is dominated by the 4.03 MeV resonance in 19 Ne. Previous measurements by our group have shown that this state is populated in the decay sequence of 20 Mg. A single 20 Mg(βp α) 15 O event through the key 15 O(α, γ) 19 Ne resonance yields a characteristic signature: the emission of a proton and alpha particle. To achieve the granularity necessary for the identification of this signature, we have upgraded the Proton Detector of the Gaseous Detector with Germanium Tagging (GADGET) into a time projection chamber to form the GADGET II detection system. GADGET II has been fully constructed, and is entering the testing phase.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score0.834

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.263
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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEPJ Web of ConferencesSame topicNuclear Physics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207