↓ Skip to main content

Radii and Binding Energies in Oxygen Isotopes: A Challenge for Nuclear Forces

Overview of attention for article published in Physical Review Letters, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Radii and Binding Energies in Oxygen Isotopes: A Challenge for Nuclear Forces
Published in
Physical Review Letters, July 2016
DOI 10.1103/physrevlett.117.052501
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

We present a systematic study of both nuclear radii and binding energies in (even) oxygen isotopes from the valley of stability to the neutron drip line. Both charge and matter radii are compared to state-of-the-art ab initio calculations along with binding energy systematics. Experimental matter radii are obtained through a complete evaluation of the available elastic proton scattering data of oxygen isotopes. We show that, in spite of a good reproduction of binding energies, ab initio calculations with conventional nuclear interactions derived within chiral effective field theory fail to provide a realistic description of charge and matter radii. A novel version of two- and three-nucleon forces leads to considerable improvement of the simultaneous description of the three observables for stable isotopes but shows deficiencies for the most neutron-rich systems. Thus, crucial challenges related to the development of nuclear interactions remain.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 57 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 32%
Researcher 10 17%
Professor 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Student > Master 3 5%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 12 20%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 41 68%
Chemistry 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Materials Science 1 2%
Unknown 14 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 August 2016.
All research outputs
#9,147,120
of 27,774,969 outputs
Outputs from Physical Review Letters
#17,329
of 42,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,986
of 315,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Physical Review Letters
#215
of 572 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,774,969 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 42,456 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,695 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 572 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.