MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1606561379 · doi:10.1063/1.2757297

Will GLAST Identify Dark Matter?

2007· article· en· W1606561379 on OpenAlexaff
James E. Taylor, Edward A. Baltz, L. Wai

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP conference proceedings · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicDark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsPhysicsDark matterWIMPWeakly interacting massive particlesLight dark matterAnnihilationScalar field dark matterAstrophysicsParticle physicsCosmic rayWarm dark matterHaloGalactic haloBaryonic dark matterRange (aeronautics)Dark matter haloAstronomyDark energyCosmologyGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nature of the cosmic dark matter is unknown. One strong possibility is that dark matter consists of weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) in the 100 GeV mass range. Such particles would annihilate in the galactic halo, producing high‐energy gamma rays. I discuss the ability of GLAST to distinguish between WIMP annihilation sources and known astrophysical source classes. Focusing on the emission from the halo substructure predicted by the cold dark matter model, the WIMP gamma‐ray spectrum is nearly unique; separation from known source classes can be done in a convincing way by including spectral and spatial information. Astrophysical detection of dark matter by GLAST would be particularly timely, given the new probes of this energy range that will be available at the Large Hadron Collider, starting in 2008.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIP conference proceedings→Same topicDark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena→French-language works237,207→