MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308212784 · doi:10.1088/1361-6471/aca03c

Alpha decay of thermally excited nuclei

2022· article· en· W4308212784 on OpenAlexafffund
J E Perez Velasquez, O L Caballero, N. G. Kelkar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics G Nuclear and Particle Physics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsExcited stateNucleosynthesisNeutronAtomic physicsCluster decayAlpha decayDecay productSpontaneous fissionNuclear physicsNucleusMass numberBeta decayDecay schemeDelayed neutronNeutron emissionFissionNuclear reactionGamma ray

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract One of the prominent decay modes of heavy nuclei which are produced in astrophysical environments at temperatures of the order of 10 9 K is the α ( 4 He) decay. Thermally enhanced α decay rates are evaluated within the standard scheme of a tunneling decay where the α particle tunnels through the potential barrier formed by its interaction with the daughter nucleus. Following the observation that there exists several excited levels with the possibility of an α decay when the daughter nucleus is at a shell closure, we focus in particular on decays producing daughter nuclei with the neutron number, N = 126. Within a statistical approach we find that the half-lives, t 1/2 ( T ), for temperatures ranging from T = 0 to 2.4 GK can decrease by 1–2 orders of magnitude with the exception of the decay of 212 Po which decays to the doubly magic daughter 208 Pb, where t 1/2 ( T ) decreases by 5 orders of magnitude. The effect of these thermally enhanced α decays on the r -process nucleosynthesis can be significant in view of the mass build-up at the waiting point nuclei with closed neutron shells.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.745

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.277
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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