MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Application of the most frequent value method for $$^{39}$$Ar half-life determination

2023· article· en· W4387654969 on OpenAlexafffund
V. V. Golovko

Bibliographic record

VenueThe European Physical Journal C · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Laboratories
FundersCanadian Nuclear Laboratories
KeywordsAlgorithmComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An evaluation method supported by robust statistical analysis was applied to historical measurements of $$^{39}$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow/> <mml:mn>39</mml:mn> </mml:msup> </mml:math> Ar half-life. The method, based on the most frequent value (MFV) approach combined with bootstrap analysis, provides a more robust way to estimate $$^{39}$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow/> <mml:mn>39</mml:mn> </mml:msup> </mml:math> Ar half-life, and results in $$T_{1/2}($$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:msub> <mml:mi>T</mml:mi> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> <mml:mo>/</mml:mo> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msub> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>(</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> MFV $$) = 268.2^{+3.1}_{-2.9}$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>)</mml:mo> <mml:mo>=</mml:mo> <mml:mn>268</mml:mn> <mml:mo>.</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> <mml:msubsup> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>-</mml:mo> <mml:mn>2.9</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo> <mml:mn>3.1</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msubsup> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> years with uncertainty corresponding to the 68% confidence level. The uncertainty is a factor of 3 smaller than that of the most precise re-calculated $$^{39}$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow/> <mml:mn>39</mml:mn> </mml:msup> </mml:math> Ar half-life measurements by Stoenner et al. and a factor of 2.7 smaller than that of the adopted half-life value in nuclear data sheets. Recently, the specific activity of the beta decay of $$^{39}$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow/> <mml:mn>39</mml:mn> </mml:msup> </mml:math> Ar in atmospheric argon was measured in several underground facilities. Applying the MFV method to a specific activity of $$^{39}$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow/> <mml:mn>39</mml:mn> </mml:msup> </mml:math> Ar from underground measurements results in $$ SA_{{^{39}\text {Ar}}/\text {Ar}}(\text {MFV}) = 0.966^{+0.010}_{-0.018} \, \, \text {Bq/kg}_{\text {atmAr}}$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>S</mml:mi> <mml:msub> <mml:mi>A</mml:mi> <mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow/> <mml:mn>39</mml:mn> </mml:msup> <mml:mtext>Ar</mml:mtext> </mml:mrow> <mml:mo>/</mml:mo> <mml:mtext>Ar</mml:mtext> </mml:mrow> </mml:msub> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>(</mml:mo> <mml:mtext>MFV</mml:mtext> <mml:mo>)</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> <mml:mo>=</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0</mml:mn> <mml:mo>.</mml:mo> <mml:msubsup> <mml:mn>966</mml:mn> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>-</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0.018</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0.010</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msubsup> <mml:mspace/> <mml:mspace/> <mml:msub> <mml:mtext>Bq/kg</mml:mtext> <mml:mtext>atmAr</mml:mtext> </mml:msub> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> with uncertainty corresponding to the 68% confidence level. In this paper the method to determine the half-life of $$^{39}$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow/> <mml:mn>39</mml:mn> </mml:msup> </mml:math> Ar using the specific activity of $$^{39}$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow/> <mml:mn>39</mml:mn> </mml:msup> </mml:math> Ar in atmospheric argon is also discussed.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe European Physical Journal CSame topicNuclear physics research studiesFrench-language works237,207