Effective field theory analysis of the Coulomb breakup of the one-neutron halo nucleus $$^{19}$$C
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We analyse the Coulomb breakup of $$^{19}$$ 19 C measured at 67A MeV at RIKEN. We use the Coulomb-Corrected Eikonal (CCE) approximation to model the reaction and describe the one-neutron halo nucleus $$^{19}$$ 19 C within Halo Effective Field Theory (Halo EFT). At leading order we obtain a fair reproduction of the measured cross section as a function of energy and angle. The description is insensitive to the choice of optical potential, as long as it accurately represents the size of $${}^{18}$$ 18 C. It is also insensitive to the interior of the $${}^{19}$$ 19 C wave function. Comparison between theory and experiment thus enables us to infer asymptotic properties of the ground state of $$^{19}$$ 19 C: these data put constraints on the one-neutron separation energy of this nucleus and, for a given binding energy, can be used to extract an asymptotic normalisation coefficient (ANC). These results are confirmed by CCE calculations employing next-to-leading order Halo EFT descriptions of $${}^{19}$$ 19 C: at this order the results for the Coulomb breakup cross section are completely insensitive to the choice of the regulator. Accordingly, this reaction can be used to constrain the one-neutron separation energy and ANC of $${}^{19}$$ 19 C.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".