The Ame2003 atomic mass evaluation: (I). Evaluation of input data, adjustment procedures☆

By A. H. Wapstra, G. Audi, C. Thibault. 2003

423 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Abstract This paper is the first of two parts presenting the result of a new evaluation of atomic masses ( Ame 2003). In this first part we give full information on the used and rejected input data and on the procedures used in deriving the tables in the second part. We first describe the philosophy and procedures used in selecting nuclear-reaction, decay, and mass spectrometric results as input values in a least-squares evaluation of best values for atomic masses. The calculation procedures and particularities of the Ame are then described. All accepted data, and rejected ones with a reported precision still of interest, are presented in a table and compared there with the adjusted values. The differences with the earlier evaluation are briefly discussed and information is given of interest for the users of this Ame . The second paper for the Ame 2003, last in this issue, gives a table of atomic masses, tables and graphs of derived quantities, and the list of references used in both this evaluation and the Nubase 2003 table (first paper in this issue). Amdc : http://csnwww.in2p3.fr/AMDC/

Subfields: Nuclear and High Energy Physics, Radiation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2f606e7866a1ed60ae0a7108455cb2fdb3a736c1

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Nuclear and High Energy Physics

In Radiation

Citations in the corpus

The impact of individual nuclear properties on $r$-process nucleosynthesis (2015, background): “ic Mass Evaluation (AME2012) [162] from the predicted masses of seven popular mass models. As much as 53% new data exists between the latest evaluation (AME2012) and the previous evaluation (AME2003) [163] most of which is from measurements on neutron-rich nuclei, thus providing more experimental in”
THE JINA REACLIB DATABASE: ITS RECENT UPDATES AND IMPACT ON TYPE-I X-RAY BURSTS (2010, methodology): “For the experimental nuclear masses we mostly use the 2003 Atomic Mass Evaluation (Wapstra et al. 2003; Audi et al. 2003b) (AME03, see exceptions below).”