MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W80372154 · doi:10.1103/physrevc.92.064606

Coulomb chronometry to probe the decay mechanism of hot nuclei

2015· article· en· W80372154 on OpenAlexaff
D. Gruyer, J. D. Frankland, É. Bonnet, A. Chbihi, G. Adémard, M. Boisjoli, B. Borderie, R. Bougault, E. Galichet, J. Gauthier, D. Guinet, P. Lautesse, N. Le Neindre, E. Legouée, I. Lombardo, O. Lopez, L. Manduci, P. Marini, K. Mazurek, P. N. Nadtochy, M. Pârlog, M. F. Rivet, R. Roy, E. Rosato, G. Spadaccini, G. Verde, E. Vient, Mariano Vigilante, J. P. Wieleczko

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review C · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersRégion NormandieInstitut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des ParticulesCommissariat à l'Énergie Atomique et aux Énergies AlternativesRussian Foundation for Basic Research
KeywordsPhysicsCoulombAtomic physicsExcitationFragment (logic)Coulomb barrierCoulomb explosionNuclear physicsSequence (biology)Cross section (physics)Energy (signal processing)ChemistryIonizationIon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In $^{129}\text{Xe}+^{\text{nat}}\text{Sn}$ central collisions from 8 to 25 MeV/nucleon, the three-fragment exit channel occurs with a significant cross section. We show that these fragments arise from two successive binary splittings of a heavy composite system. The sequence of fragment production is determined. Strong Coulomb proximity effects are observed in the three-fragment final state. A comparison with Coulomb trajectory calculations shows that the time scale between the consecutive breakups decreases with increasing bombarding energy, becoming quasisimultaneous above excitation energy ${E}^{*}=4.0\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.5\phantom{\rule{0.16em}{0ex}}\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{nucleon}$. This transition from sequential to simultaneous breakup was interpreted as the signature of the onset of multifragmentation for the three-fragment exit channel in this system.

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 score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score0.807

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)0.0000.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.315 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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