The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Neutron radii in mean-field models
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Bulk nuclear observables such as charge radii and binding energies are well described by both nonrelativistic and covariant mean-field models. However, predictions of neutron radii, which are not tightly constrained by reliable data, vary significantly. The nature of this variation is investigated using correlations between basic properties of the models and the neutron skin thickness in lead. The results suggest that conventional covariant models are too limited. The study is guided by principles and insights of effective field theory (EFT), such as power counting, and the relation of mean-field models to a more general EFT approach to nuclei is discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Self-Consistent Equations Including Exchange and Correlation Effects
Kohn, W., & Sham, L. J. (1965) · Physical Review · doi:10.1103/physrev.140.a1133 · Cited by 64,135
Cited by
Recent progress and new challenges in isospin physics with heavy-ion reactions
LI, B., CHEN, L., & KO, C. (2008) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2008.04.005 · Cited by 1,314
Metadata
- Authors
- Furnstahl, R. J.
- Venue
- Nuclear Physics A
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2002-07
- Volume
- 706
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 85-110
- ISSN
- 0375-9474 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1983394899
- Cited by
- 476
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Neutron radii in mean-field models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0375-9474(02)00867-9
- The paper
- Furnstahl, R. J. (2002). Neutron radii in mean-field models. Nuclear Physics A. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0375-9474(02)00867-9
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
