MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214708145 · doi:10.1051/epjconf/202226005001

First measurement of<sup>25</sup>Al+p resonant scattering relevant to the astrophysical reaction<sup>22</sup>Mg(<i>α</i>,p)<sup>25</sup>Al

2022· article· en· W4214708145 on OpenAlexaff
Jun Hu, H. Yamaguchi, Y. H. Lam, Alexander Heger, D. Kahl, Adam Michael Jacobs, Zac Johnston, Shutao Xu, N.T. Zhang, S.B. Ma, L. H. Ru, Enqiang Liu, Tong Liu, S. Hayakawa, L. Yang, Hideki Shimizu, C. B. Hamill, A. St. J. Murphy, Jun Su, Xiao Fang, K. Y. Chae, M. S. Kwag, S.M. Cha, N.N. Duy, Nguyen Kim Uyen, D.H. Kim, R. G. Pizzone, M. La Cognata, S. Cherubini, S. Romano, А. Туміно, J. F. Liang, A. Psaltis, Michele Sferrazza, D. Kim, Yingying Li, S. Kubono

Bibliographic record

VenueEPJ Web of Conferences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsProtonReaction rateNuclear reactionAtomic physicsNuclear physicsScatteringResonance (particle physics)Thermonuclear fusionParity (physics)ExcitationAnalytical Chemistry (journal)PlasmaChemistryQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Type I X-ray bursts (XRBs) are the most frequently observed thermonuclear explosions in nature. The 22 Mg( α ,p) 25 Al reaction plays a critical role in XRB models. However, experimental information is insufficient to deduce a precise 22 Mg( α ,p) 25 Al reaction rate for the respective XRB temperature range. A new measurement of 25 Al+p resonant scattring was performed up to the astrophysically interested energy region of 22 Mg( α ,p) 25 Al. Several resonances were observed in the excitation functions, and their level properties have been determined based on an R-matrix analysis. In particular, proton widths and spin-parities of four natural-parity resonances above the α threshold of 26 Si, which can contribute the reaction rate of 22 Mg( α ,p) 25 Al, were first experimentally determined.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEPJ Web of ConferencesSame topicHigh-pressure geophysics and materialsFrench-language works237,207