MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308512227 · doi:10.1103/physrevc.106.054310

α-cluster structure of <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mmultiscripts><mml:mi>Ne</mml:mi><mml:mprescripts/><mml:none/><mml:mn>18</mml:mn></mml:mmultiscripts></mml:math>

2022· article· lv· W4308512227 on OpenAlexaff
M. Barbui, Alexander Volya, Eric Aboud, S. Ahn, J. Bishop, V. Z. Goldberg, J. Hooker, C. H. Hunt, H. Jayatissa, Tz. Kokalova, E. Koshchiy, S. Pirrie, E. Pollacco, B. T. Roeder, A. Saastamoinen, S. Upadhyayula, C. Wheldon, G. V. Rogachev

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. C · 2022
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
FundersNuclear PhysicsScience and Technology Facilities CouncilOffice of ScienceU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsPhysicsExcitationEnergy (signal processing)Atomic physicsMatrix (chemical analysis)InverseQuantum mechanicsChemistryMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we study \ensuremath{\alpha} clustering in $^{18}\mathrm{Ne}$ and compare it with what is known about clustering in the mirror nucleus $^{18}\mathrm{O}$. The excitation function for $^{14}\mathrm{O}+\ensuremath{\alpha}$ resonant elastic scattering was measured in inverse kinematics using the Texas active target detector system (TexAT). The data cover the excitation-energy range from 8 to 17 MeV. The analysis was performed using a multichannel $R$-matrix approach. The detailed spectroscopic information is obtained from the $R$-matrix analysis: excitation energy of the states, spin, and parity as well as partial \ensuremath{\alpha} and total widths. This information is compared with theoretical models and previous data. Correspondence between the levels in $^{18}\mathrm{O}$ and $^{18}\mathrm{Ne}$ is established. We carried out an extensive shell-model analysis of the $^{18}\mathrm{O}$ and $^{18}\mathrm{Ne}$ mirror pair. The agreement between theory and experiment is very good and especially useful when it comes to understanding the clustering strength distribution. The comparison of the experimental data with theory shows that certain states especially at high excitation energies are significantly more clustered than predicted. This indicates that the structure of these states is collective and is aligned towards the corresponding \ensuremath{\alpha} reaction channel.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.015

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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