MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321747004 · doi:10.17615/kt3a-nk93

High-spin study of rotational structures in 72Br

2023· article· en· W4321747004 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Chandler O'Leary, R.V.F. Janssens, R.M. Diamond, D. Ward, R.A.E. Austin, A.O. Macchiavelli, M. Cromaz, D. Seweryniak, J.C. Waddington, I. Ragnarsson, J.A. Cameron, G.J. Lane, D.F. Hodgson, M.A. Deleplanque, D. E. Appelbe, R.M. Clark, K. Vetter, C.J. Lister, D.G. Jenkins, C.E. Svensson, F.S. Stephens, P. Fallen, N.S. Kelsall, R. Wadsworth, D. Sarantites, M.P. Carpenter, G.C. Ball

Bibliographic record

VenueUNC Libraries · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaVetenskapsrådetEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsSpin (aerodynamics)PhysicsMaterials scienceCondensed matter physicsNuclear magnetic resonanceThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-spin states in 3572Br37 were studied using the 40Ca(36Ar, 3pn) reaction. The existing level scheme has been significantly modified and extended. Evidence has been found for a spin reassignment of -1ℏh to the previously observed negative-parity band, which carries implications for the interpretation of a signature inversion in this structure. One signature of the previously assigned positive-parity band is interpreted as negative parity and has been extended to I π=(22-) and its signature partner has been observed up to Iπ = (19-) for the first time. The remaining positive-parity band has been extended to Iπ=(29+). A sequence of states observed to Iπ=(22+) may be the signature partner of this structure. Configurations have been assigned to each of these three structures through comparisons to cranked Nilsson-Strutinsky calculations.

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 score0.243
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

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 head0.289
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUNC LibrariesSame topicNuclear physics research studiesFrench-language works237,207