MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ab initio calculation of the 3He(α,γ)7Be astrophysical S factor with chiral two- and three-nucleon forces

2024· article· en· W4405338284 on OpenAlexafffund
M. C. Atkinson, Konstantinos Kravvaris, Sofia Quaglioni, P. Navrátil

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Letters B · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
FundersNational Research Council CanadaLawrence Livermore National LaboratoryNuclear PhysicsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOffice of ScienceU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsPhysicsAb initioNucleonNuclear physicsAb initio quantum chemistry methodsQuantum mechanicsMolecule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 3 He ( α , γ ) 7 Be radiative capture reaction plays a key role in the creation of elements in stars as well as in the production of solar neutrinos , the observation of which is one of the main tools to study the properties of our sun. Since accurate experimental measurements of this fusion cross section at solar energies are difficult due to the strong Coulomb repulsion between the reactants, the onus falls on theory to provide a robust means for extrapolating from the region where experimental data is available down to the desired astrophysical regime. We present the first microscopic calculations of 3 He ( α , γ ) 7 Be with explicit inclusion of three-nucleon forces. Our prediction of the astrophysical S factor qualitatively agrees with experimental data. We further incorporate experimental bound-state and scattering information in our calculation to arrive at a more quantitative description. This process reveals that our current model lacks sufficient repulsion in the 1 / 2 + channel of our model space to simultaneously reproduce elastic-scattering data. This deficit suggests that 3 He ( α , γ ) 7 Be probes aspects of the nuclear force that are not currently well-constrained.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.435
Threshold uncertainty score0.532

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics Letters BSame topicNuclear physics research studiesFrench-language works237,207