dataesr/scientific-paragraphs-categorization huggingface dataset:
Acknowledgments. We wish to thank  Scientific Editor Bernd Kulessa , reviewer  Eric Petersen  and an anonymous reviewer for their thoughtful feedback and suggestions, which greatly improved this manuscript. Fieldwork logistics were made possible by the Ev-K2- CNR  Project and  Nepal Academy of Science and Technology. Funding for an initial, exploratory field season (2014) came from  Dr Summer Rupper  and the  Brigham Young University , with additional funds from the  American Alpine Club. Dr Mike Dorais  and  Josh Mauer  ( BYU ) provided field assistance to the first author. Funding for the 2015 work presented in this paper came from the  Department of Earth Sciences at Dartmouth College , the  American Philosophical Society , and the  Albert Cass Travel Fellowship. Gabriel Lewis ,  Sonam Futi Sherpa  and  Dr Dibas Shrestha  assisted  Alexandra Giese  with data collection.
Data availability. Raw radar data files and datasets S1-S4, as listed in the Supplement, are available at https://glacioclim. osug. fr/Radar-data-on-Changri-Nup-Glacier. Along with these data, the processing code used for this work (i. e. raw data, through the LOOCV sequence, to the thickness retrievals reported in the manuscript) is publicly available on the lead author's GitHub page, github. com/alexandragiese/GPR_loocv.
Both the lysimeters and the containers provide a living space of sufficient size to establish and study belowground organisms and processes. To achieve a near-natural soil temperature gradient with temperature decreasing from the surface to deeper soil depths, the bottom of the soil container was fitted with a coil that circulates a cooling medium. This system can be regulated individually for each EcoUnit and automated with the data from the above-and belowground temperature sensors. To allow pore water sampling and near-natural drainage of water from the soil system, four suction systems are installed at the bottom of the soil container or one in each lysimeter. Each suction system consists of a suction cup ring with 8 suction cups, a pump, a control module, and two glass bottles. By applying negative pressure (max.
This can be done either manually or automated in an hourly resolution with an automatically linear transition between the settings. In this way, the relative proportion of different wavelengths within the light spectrum can be modified (e. g. , a higher proportion of red light at dawn and dusk). The maximum photosynthetic active radiation (PAR) 5 cm above the standard soil surface can reach about 400 μmol s -1 m -2 on average (detailed information on the heterogeneity of illumination can be found in Appendix 2). Two electrical cabinets provide the power supply for the lamps and a local control unit for all sensors and actuators. Control commands and settings of all manipulable environmental parameters are stored in a central database and get transmitted to each EcoUnit via a network. In turn, the execution confirmations as well as the timestamped sensor data of each EcoUnit are logged in the same database.
In this article, we have coupled for the first time the GEF predictions for the fission yields to fission-product beta-decay data in a summation calculation of reactor antineutrino energy spectra. The first comparisons performed between the spectra from GEF and those obtained with the evaluated nuclear databases exhibited large discrepancies that highlighted the exigency of the modelisation of the antineutrino spectra and showing their usefulness in the evaluation of nuclear data. Additional constraints for the GEF model were thus needed in order to reach the level of accuracy required by the antineutrino energy spectra. The combination of a careful study of the independent isotopic yields and the adjunction of the LOHENGRIN fission-yield data as additional constraints led to a substantially improved agreement between the antineutrino spectra computed with GEF and with the evaluated data.
In the present contribution, we investigate how a combined analysis of experiment, evaluation and theory can lead to an improved quality of fission-product yield estimations. In particular, we add the antineutrino observable to the ones already used such as decay heat, delayed neutron fractions or prompt neutron multiplicities, and we demonstrate the benefit of including a theoretical model in this process. The GEF model  [28]  seems to us best suited for this purpose. The calculation of antineutrino energy spectra with fission yields resulting from different sets of parameters of the GEF model allows tuning these parameters to better reproduce those computed with the JEFF fission yields with the constraint to keep the consistency of the parameters among the various fissioning systems. Antineutrino detection for reactor monitoring is another motivation for improving the quality of the fission yields stored in the evaluated databases for fission products and of the beta-decay properties.
III. GEF IMPROVEMENTS USING REACTOR ANTINEUTRINOS AND APPLICATION TO ANTINEUTRINO PRODUCTION Antineutrino energy spectra of individual fission products obtained from nuclear databases have been used to refine the GEF code in order to improve its potential of predictiveness for reactor antineutrinos. In the present section, reactor antineutrino energy spectra have been computed using summation calculations with decay data taken from nuclear databases and fission yields taken respectively from JEFF-3. 1. 1, JEFF-3. 3 and GEF. The direct comparison of the three calculations allowed us extensively improving the predictions of GEF for antineutrinos by acting on a few well identified parameters, depending on the fission channel concerned.
A. Summation calculations for antineutrinos The summation method is based on the use of nuclear data combined in a sum of all the individual contributions of the beta branches of the fission products, weighted by the amount of the latter nuclei. Two types of datasets are thus involved in the calculation: fission yields and fission-product decay data. This method was originally developed by  [44]  followed by  [45]  and then by  [46, 47]. The β/ν spectrum per fission of a fissionable nuclide S k (E) can be broken-up into the sum of all fission products β/ν spectra weighted by their activity A fp S k (E) = N f p f p=1 A f p × S f p (E) (1) Eventually, the β/ν spectrum of one fission product is the sum over N B beta branches (b) of all beta-decay spectra (or associated antineutrino spectra), S b f p (in eq 2), of the parent nucleus to the daughter nucleus weighted by their respective branching ratios (BR b f p ) as S f p (E) = NB b=1 BR b f p × S b f p (Z f p , A f p , E b 0f p , E) (2) E b 0f p being the endpoint of the b th branch of a given fission product.
The antineutrino spectra are particularly sensitive to the yields of specific nuclides, especially at the higher antineutrino energies. In addition, the relatively large uncertainties of JEFF-3. 1. 1 and JEFF-3. 3 fission yields suggested a good reproduction by the GEF model with rather large deviations. Deviations inside the error bars of the evaluations lead to substantial variations in the antineutrino spectrum. These remaining discrepancies had only little impact on other observables such as the decay heat after fission pulses but showed to impact a lot the antineutrino spectra. Additional experimental constraints on fission yields were needed, and this conclusion triggered the use of the LOHENGRIN data which eventually allowed to improve the predictiveness of the model because they are much more accurate, as shown in the sections V and VI of this article.
These cannot be calculated with sufficient accuracy and must be determined experimentally by a scan over the charge-state distribution of all fission products. Therefore, a good quality of the data requires a very careful analysis and correction of these disturbing effects. In addition to the limitation to thermal-neutron-induced fission of a few suitable target nuclei, the kinetic-energy distribution of the fission products cannot be covered completely by practical reasons. The full distribution must be estimated from the measurements at a few kinetic-energy values. This may introduce some systematic uncertainties. Mass yields can be measured over the whole fission-product range. However, we mention that kinematic measurements of independent fission-product yields, fully determined in A and Z, can only be performed for the lighter products.
V. EVALUATIONS Evaluation assesses the measured data and their uncertainties, reconciles discrepant experimental data and fills in missing data by exploiting systematic trends of the measured data in order to provide reliable nuclear data, primarily for applications in nuclear technology. Evaluation work is organized, and the resulting nuclear-data tables are disseminated by several nuclear-data centers under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency. In the following, we will consider the evaluations ENDF/B-VII, JEFF-3. 1. 1 and JEFF-3. 3. (Note that all fissionfragment yields used in this work have identical values in ENDF/B-VI. 8, ENDF/B-VII. 0, ENDF/B-VII. 1, and ENDF/B-VIII. 0 [54]. ) The main sources of these evaluations are data from radiochemical measurements, supplemented by only a few data from LOHENGRIN experiments, in spite of their special advantages in accuracy.
VI. COMPARATIVE STUDY Although the characteristics of the antineutrino emission in fission is specific to the fission-product nuclide, determined in Z and A, it is meaningful, as a first step, to assure a good description of the mass yields, because these are usually measured with the highest accuracy. In the present section, we compare the fission-product mass distributions for thermal-neutron-induced fission of all systems, which are included in the ENDF/B-VII, the JEFF-3. 1. 1 or the JEFF-3. 3 evaluation or for which experimental data from LOHENGRIN experiments are available, with the result of GEF-Y2019/V1. 2. In addition, fast-neutron-induced fission of 238 U is included. For a quick overview of the essential results, important conclusions and recommendations are given in italic. Throughout the paper we will use the following notations: n th means thermal neutrons, n fast means fast neutrons, and n hi means neutrons of 14 MeV.
A. Overall impression In the present subsection VI A, the mass yields from the GEF code are compared with evaluated data or results from LOHENGRIN experiments, where at least satisfactory agreement has been obtained. At the same time, these are the systems that have been experimentally investigated the most intensively, and the data are expected to be the most reliable. Cases with larger deviations are discussed in section VI B. We concentrate here mostly on thermalneutron-induced and fast-neutron-induced fission. A more general overview was given in Ref. [28] , however with an older version of the GEF code. a. Mass yields of 229 Th(n th ,f ): Figs. 3  and 4  show comparisons of the mass yields from GEF with the data from the ENDF/B-VII evaluation and from a LOHENGRIN experiment  [71]  for the system 229 Th(n th ,f).
There is fair agreement, except some underestimated intensities of the peaks near A = 85 and A = 144, which becomes significant in comparison with the LOHENGRIN data due to their appreciably higher accuracy. These deviations hint to a A Overall impression VI COMPARATIVE STUDY problem in the description of the S2 fission channel in GEF. This problem might be cured by the introduction of a more complex shape of the S2 contribution to the mass yields. However, this is beyond the scope of the present status of GEF, because a higher degree of complexity and the corresponding introduction of additional model parameters might endanger the predictive power of the model. The symmetric yield is slightly overestimated. b. Mass yields of 233 U(n th ,f ): Figs. 5, 6, 7, and 8 show comparisons of the mass yields from GEF with the data from the ENDF/B-VII, JEFF-3.
1. 1 and JEFF-3. 3 evaluations, as well as from a LOHENGRIN experiment  [72]  for the system 233 U(n th ,f). There is fair agreement. However, the yields near A = 90 and A = 136 are somewhat underestimated, while the yields near A = 98 are somewhat overestimated. Again, this is most significant in comparison with the LOHENGRIN data. These discrepancies appear with respect to the data from all sources. Thus, they must probably be attributed to deficiencies of GEF, probably due to restrictions in the shape of the mass distribution of the asymmetric fission channel S2. This is in line with the observations for the system 229 Th(n th ,f). In addition, the yields in the inner wings of the asymmetric peaks are somewhat underestimated. In view of the good agreement between GEF and the evaluations in this mass region for the especially carefully studied system 235 U(n th ,f), a common deficiency of all these evaluations for 233 U(n th ,f) due to some erroneous experimental data may be assumed.
A Overall impression VI COMPARATIVE STUDY The data of all evaluations are rather well reproduced. Deviations rarely exceed the uncertainties of the evaluations. The clearest picture is provided by the comparison with the LOHENGRIN data, which have by far the smallest uncertainties. Here some deviations appear in slightly underestimated yields around A = 90 and slightly overestimated yields around A = 94, which again hints to some shortcoming in the shape of the S2 fission channel in GEF. The evaluations show similar deviations, but only the error bars of the ENDF evaluation are small enough in this mass region to make these significant. Moreover, some yields of the extremely asymmetric splits are overestimated, where the super-asymmetric fission channel dominates. We note that the yield at symmetry is very slightly overestimated.
d. Mass yields of 238 Np(n th ,f ): Figs. 13, 14, and 15 show comparisons of the mass yields from GEF with the data from the JEFF-3. 1. 1 and JEFF-3. 3 evaluations, as well as from LOHENGRIN experiments  [75, 76]  for the system 238 Np(n th ,f) (by the 237 Np(2n th ) reaction). Again, the LOHENGRIN data have the smallest uncertainties. The data are quite well reproduced. Some deviations are found in the inner wings of the asymmetric peaks with JEFF-3. 1. 1, while there is good agreement with JEFF-3. 3. The shape of the distribution near symmetry of JEFF-3. 1. 1 shows a sharp minimum, while JEFF-3. 3 and GEF show a plateau-like shape, however at different levels. The LOHENGRIN data do not reach above A=100. However, they show a slight underestimation of GEF near A=96. The yield at symmetry is overestimated.
The smallest deviations are found with respect to the LOHENGRIN data, which have by far the smallest uncertainties. We would like to draw the attention to an interesting detail: In the LOHENGRIN data there appears a clear shoulder at A = 84, dominated by 84 Se, which is well reproduced by GEF. According to GEF, this shoulder marks the transition from the S2 to the super-asymmetric fission channel. This shoulder does not appear in the evaluations. This shoulder is seen, less pronounced, also in the GEF results for 241 Pu(n th ,f). We note the good description around symmetry, namely when compared to ENDF/B-VII. g. Mass yields of 240 Pu(n th ,f ): Fig. 22  shows the comparison of the mass yields from GEF with the data from the ENDF/B-VII evaluation for the system 240 Pu(n th ,f). The data are rather well reproduced, except near symmetry, where the yields from GEF are lower.
39  and 40. One can observe a slight underestimation for the lightest masses in both figures. The LOHENGRIN experiment, which covers only the light part, has provided data with very small uncertainties. Therefore, these data represent an especially stringent test case. There is a remarkably good agreement of the GEF result with the mass yields around the light peak, except the yield for A=109, which is somewhat underestimated in the calculation. In some cases, the initial excitation energy of the fissioning nucleus extends over a range where the variation of the fission-product yields as a function of excitation energy cannot be neglected. A realistic description of the dependence of the fission process on the initial excitation energy is mandatory for obtaining reliable results. In these cases, a series of theoretical calculations with a sequence of excitation energies must be performed, and the results must be added up with the appropriate weights.
B. Problems and proposed solutions In this section, we compare the fission yields from different evaluations and from some LOHENGRIN experiments with the GEF results in cases of severe discrepancies. The comparisons are shown for all evaluations among the three considered in this work, which are available for the respective system. 1. A=129 yield of 235 U(n th ,f ) As a semi-empirical model, GEF relies on reliable and accurate data. The inclusion of erroneous data in the adjustment of GEF parameters leads to an aberrant behavior and to false predictions of the model. As an illustration for these difficulties, we have a closer view on the mass yield of A = 129 in the thermal-neutron-induced fission of 235 U. Table  III  shows that the measured and the evaluated values scatter strongly: The highest value is larger by a factor of 1.
This problem has already been mentioned in Ref. [28]. It has been attributed to a target contamination, probably of 239 Pu. Figures  54  and 55  show that this problem does not appear in the JEFF evaluations, probably by the use of some more recent data. In figures 56, 57, and 58 there is good agreement between the GEF results and ENDF/B-VII for mass yields of the system 241 Pu(n th ,f). However, the evaluations JEFF-3. 1. 1 and JEFF-3. 3 show strong discrepancies near symmetry and in the upper wing. We recommend to use the ENDF/B-VII compilation or the GEF results. In figure  59 , there are important discrepancies between the mass yields of ENDF/B-VII and the GEF results for the system 251 Cf(n th ,f), while in figure  60  the data of the LOHENGRIN experiment  [85]  agree on a coarse scale quite well with the GEF results.
On a finer scale, however, the LOHENGRIN data show erratic fluctuations, which are much larger than the given uncertainties. Such fluctuations are not found in the fission yields of any other system. Therefore, we attribute the fluctuations to difficulties in the experiment or in the data analysis. We recommend to use the GEF results. In figure  61 , there are strong discrepancies in the whole mass distribution between GEF and ENDF/B-VII for 254 Es(n th ,f). It is rather speculative to argue, which set of mass yields is more reliable. It is, however, rather difficult to reconcile the fission yields from ENDF/B-VII with the inherent regularities of the GEF model. In figure  62  there are strong discrepancies in the whole mass distribution between GEF and ENDF/B-VII for 255 Fm(n th ,f). In particular, the mean value of the distribution is shifted by about 3 units.
Most of the LOHENGRIN experiments seem to be much more accurate than the evaluations. The agreement of the mass yields with the GEF results tends to confirm the small indicated uncertainties of these experiments, except in the case of 251 Cf(n th ,f). The LOHENGRIN data form a backbone for determining the parameters of GEF. However, this is not a direct adjustment. On the contrary, the compatibility of the LOHENGRIN results with the regularities and constraints of the theoretical framework of basic concepts and laws of general validity in the GEF model tends to corroborate both the LOHENGRIN data and the GEF model. Thus, the evaluations can be improved by including the LOHENGRIN data to a greater extent. The remaining deviations between empirical mass yields and GEF results reveal some deficiencies of both the evaluations and GEF, depending on the case.
Nuclide Rel. Dif. GEF vs JEFF-3. Using the summation method and GEF fission yields, the nuclei contributing mainly to the antineutrino energy spectra of the most dominant isotopes in a reactor core can be extracted in bins of antineutrino energies as it was done in the past from  [86]  with the summation method of  [21]  obtained with the JEFF3. 1. 1 fission yields. Table  V  shows the relative discrepancies between the GEF, JEFF-3. 1. 1 and JEFF-3. 3 cumulative yields for the top twenty of the largest contributions to the 235 U antineutrino energy spectrum obtained with the summation method  [23]. The agreement reached after the complex tuning of the GEF model on the available datasets for a wide set of fissioning systems is quite satisfactory, and mainly constrained by the small uncertainties of the LOHENGRIN data.
The IBD process is the result of the interaction   [87]  (see text) with summation-model predictions in which the decay data are those of  [23]  and the fission yields are the cumulative ones from the new version of the GEF code presented here, from the JEFF-3. 1. 1 database and from the JEFF-3. 3 database. of an νe with a proton, producing a positron and a neutron (reaction threshold 1. 8 MeV). In Figure  64 , the inverse beta decay yield as a function of the amount of fission events in the reactor coming from 239 Pu (F 239 , called "fission fraction") published by the Daya Bay collaboration  [87]  and defined following the equation σ f (F 239 ) = σf + dσ f dF 239 (F 239 -F239 ) (3) is displayed with open diamonds (the data points include error bars). In this formula, the average IBD yield σf is obtained by folding the IBD cross-section with the total antineutrino energy spectrum computed by weighting the 235 U, 238 U, 239 Pu and 241 Pu spectra by their average fission fractions provided in  [87].
F239 is the average 239 Pu fission fraction, and dσ f dF239 is the change of the IBD yield per unit 239 Pu fission fraction. In  [23] , the latest predictions performed with the summation model (SM) updated with the TAGS measurements performed during the last decade predict an IBD yield located only 1. 9% above the IBD yield measured by Daya Bay, and a slope of its evolution with F 239 in very good agreement with the experimental one. In this SM, the individual fission yields from the JEFF-3. 1. 1 database are evolved at 450 days of irradiation with the MURE code (dashed line called SM-18 in Fig. 64 ), taking into account the evolution due to the various half-lives of the fission products and neutron capture. In order to see how the predictions of the SM using the same beta decay data but cumulative yields from the evaluated JEFF database in its 3.
1. 1 version of the fission yields database. B. Antineutrino energy spectra FIG. 65. Calculated antineutrino spectra from GEF combined with the selection of decay data of  [23]  for 6 isotopes of Th (Z = 90) in the case of thermal fission. We have mentioned in the previous sections that there are indeed discrepancies between the two versions of the JEFF fission yields database, which are not always well understood. This reflects into the antineutrino spectra (see for instance the differences observed for 238 U and 241 Pu). It is not obvious to us that the fission yields of JEFF-3. 3 should be used systematically instead of the ones of JEFF-3. 1. 1. For instance in the case of 241 Pu for which inconsistencies in the evaluation of the fission yields have been evidenced in section VI B 6, the antineutrino energy spectrum computed with the JEFF-3.
3 fission yields departs from the one computed with GEF above 4 MeV (see Fig. 63 ). Overall, the SM model using the cumulative yields from GEF lies about 1% above the SM-18 prediction (but one would have to correct the result for the impact of the very long-lived nuclei, i. e. a -0. 4% effect on the IBD yield) and about 0. 7% above the JEFF-3. 1. 1 cumulative yields. This result shows that GEF is an excellent model for the prediction of fission yields for antineutrino fundamental and applied physics, accurate enough to be competitive with evaluated databases even in the case of the most well known thermal fissioning systems and to be compared with neutrino experiments. The antineutrino energy spectra for the systems listed in the first part of this article have been computed using the GEF cumulative fission yields combined with the set of beta decay data described above  [23].